They are rather hardy. I think there was one mission in one of the apoc books that was 6 leman russ Vs a tau army and they came out winning. Leman russ are very big heavy tanks. Someone else can correct me, but I think they are the biggest tanks in the IoM
Edit: Oh wait I think someone will have to correct me because I had the russ mixed up with the baneblade.
The russ is deployed in mass like guardsmen. It's more hardy then something that is not a tank, but it's big pluses are in modularity, maintenance and cost.
nomotog wrote: They are rather hardy. I think there was one mission in one of the apoc books that was 6 leman russ Vs a tau army and they came out winning. Leman russ are very big heavy tanks. Someone else can correct me, but I think they are the biggest tanks in the IoM
Edit: Oh wait I think someone will have to correct me because I had the russ mixed up with the baneblade.
The russ is deployed in mass like guardsmen. It's more hardy then something that is not a tank, but it's big pluses are in modularity, maintenance and cost.
Supposedly it can run on almost any liquid fuel source as well, although that might have been retconned.
nomotog wrote: They are rather hardy. I think there was one mission in one of the apoc books that was 6 leman russ Vs a tau army and they came out winning. Leman russ are very big heavy tanks. Someone else can correct me, but I think they are the biggest tanks in the IoM
Edit: Oh wait I think someone will have to correct me because I had the russ mixed up with the baneblade.
The russ is deployed in mass like guardsmen. It's more hardy then something that is not a tank, but it's big pluses are in modularity, maintenance and cost.
Supposedly it can run on almost any liquid fuel source as well, although that might have been retconned.
I think i remember reading it can still run off wood if need be.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Right but that wouldn't have worked so well if they were sending 6 Shermans against an Abrams which could outrange, outgun and outmanoeuvre them so that they were all burning wrecks before ever actually getting in range.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Fortunately the primary german fighting vehicle were the Panzer IV and the StuGIII, both of which werre comparable in firepower and armour to the Sherman.
The Panther itself had it's own flaws and i have yet to see a reliable source for the 5/6 M4 for one Panzer V claim. Allied losses certainly show nothing of that kind.
they can be churned out on mass by the million.
equipped by the million.
if they wanted and had the time and rescources to spare they could drown the Tau superior designs in hoards upon hoards of tanks, Chimeras, and such Armour.
jhe90 wrote: however good the Tau are there's is this,
they can be churned out on mass by the million. equipped by the million. if they wanted and had the time and rescources to spare they could drown the Tau superior designs in hoards upon hoards of tanks, Chimeras, and such Armour.
It's hard to drown an enemy that uses hovering tanks and masses of air support. Big columns of tanks are very easy to stop, you just have to lure them into tight spaces (canyons, city streets etc.), immobilise the ones at the front and back then take out the rest at your own leisure.
Also masses of tanks need masses of fuel and ammunition, they need lots of crews and mechanics who need lots of food and water. Keeping that amount of armour supplied in a warzone where you don't have a perfectly reliable supply network in place is a very difficult task.
nomotog wrote: They are rather hardy. I think there was one mission in one of the apoc books that was 6 leman russ Vs a tau army and they came out winning. Leman russ are very big heavy tanks. Someone else can correct me, but I think they are the biggest tanks in the IoM
Edit: Oh wait I think someone will have to correct me because I had the russ mixed up with the baneblade.
The russ is deployed in mass like guardsmen. It's more hardy then something that is not a tank, but it's big pluses are in modularity, maintenance and cost.
Supposedly it can run on almost any liquid fuel source as well, although that might have been retconned.
I think i remember reading it can still run off wood if need be.
Burn is burn. It could be a steam engine then it could just run on anything combustible.
From a fluff perspective they are very rugged. They have a 10k years service record, are the prime battle tank for the imperial guard and are the most widely deployed tank in the imperium.
However, from a xenos fluff perspective they never seem to perform well. As the main imperial battle tank whenever there is mention of anti tank weapons, it is very often the leman russ that is taking the brunt of it. Plot armour is a powerful capability.
In terms of gameplay they are ok. AV14 on the front is nice, but their mediocre side and rear armour values let them down.
Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
FAV14 suggests that from the front, its armour is pretty much the toughest anything can possibly be in the 41st millenium. Nothing, not even planetary defence bunkers, not even Imperator titans, has stronger than armour 14.
That said, any smart opponent will flank them, which isn't hard to do because they're slow. They can barely grind along at infantry walking speed under the current rules, and even the previous, fluffier ones had them being like RNLI lifeboats - not the fasted boats around, but they'll do those fifteen knots through a typhoon just as well as they'll do them through open seas.
The Russ might be slow, but it is extremely maneuverable. It's been mentioned several times in the fluff that, for such a large tank, it can turn on a dime and it has a very fast rotation rate. It's a common tactic with Imperial tank units to respond to a flank attack by halting and immediately going into a reverse turn, so suddenly the flankers are faced with the tank's frontal armor.
Furyou Miko wrote: Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
The OP asked how survivable they are. I answered. It's everyone else that's derailing this.
They're not very survivable at all against Tau.
When hit by a rail gun, it the vacuum effect is so strong that the Russ's crew will be sucked out the exit hole as a human jelly smear, meaning even a hit that doesn't hit the engine or ammo storage will still kill the thing.
Like Big Blind Bill said, the LR is great if you're facing Imperial or Chaos forces, because their tech sucks. You put it up against alien tanks, and they die in droves. It just doesn't have a way to deal with lances or gauss or rail guns.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Actually, the Sherman tank was an excellent piece of hardware, definitely equivalent (if differently prioritized) to a Panzer IV.
The Leman Russ's capabilities are dependent on who is writing i, sadly, like most things in 40k. Personally, I view it as a capable, durable, and reliable main battle tank, generally better than average armor and firepower, but low speed and poor communication/sensors.
Furyou Miko wrote: FAV14 suggests that from the front, its armour is pretty much the toughest anything can possibly be in the 41st millenium. Nothing, not even planetary defence bunkers, not even Imperator titans, has stronger than armour 14.
[Nitpick] The Aquila Strongpoint defence bunker has AV 15, and the Gorgon's front armour is so tough that it's better than AV14 (so they've represented it as AV 14 with an invulnerable save, because... reasons. Possibly to protect from lances). [/nitpick]
Big Blind Bill wrote: From a fluff perspective they are very rugged. They have a 10k years service record, are the prime battle tank for the imperial guard and are the most widely deployed tank in the imperium. However, from a xenos fluff perspective they never seem to perform well. As the main imperial battle tank whenever there is mention of anti tank weapons, it is very often the leman russ that is taking the brunt of it. Plot armour is a powerful capability.
This. GW fluff rarely spends much time on poorly equipped PDFs, renegade militias, cheap local products, etc. This means that the lowest-tech tanks mentioned with any frequency (if we ignore orks) are the basic Imperial tanks. This means that the Leman Russ is often shown facing the AT weapons of sophisticated species like the Tau, Eldar, and Necron, etc (which can cut through tanks easily)*, rather than the foes they face more often and with more success - the secessionist PDFs, renegade militias, or the countless minor alien races that bedevil the Imperium. For a good description of Imperial tanks facing off against less-advanced tanks, see the Tanith "Honour Guard" book. The Chaos forces on the planet use various types of "tanks"** that are even cheaper, more numerous, and lower-tech than the Imperial Leman Russ. The book spends a good number of pages talking about how high-tech the Leman Russ is, and even more pages on the well-drilled Imperial tank force shredding the numerically superior chaos tanks.
*A high-tech alien weapon AT weapon wouldn't be an AT weapon if it can't shred the armour of the basic human tank, would it? **Actual tanks (rather than GW tanks), plus assault guns. Not APCs, self-propelled artillery, etc, which GW keeps calling "tanks".
Furyou Miko wrote: Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
FAV14 suggests that from the front, its armour is pretty much the toughest anything can possibly be in the 41st millenium. Nothing, not even planetary defence bunkers, not even Imperator titans, has stronger than armour 14.
That said, any smart opponent will flank them, which isn't hard to do because they're slow. They can barely grind along at infantry walking speed under the current rules, and even the previous, fluffier ones had them being like RNLI lifeboats - not the fasted boats around, but they'll do those fifteen knots through a typhoon just as well as they'll do them through open seas.
The smart opponent simply shoots their tracks that lack suspension, the belly of the tank which you can probably bounce a shot into, just hammer the front armor until it breaks as it isn't properly slanted, target weaker armor near the sponsons, or just hit the turret at a flat 90 degree angle, which is fairly easy to do against a Russ.
If I ever make an Imperial Guard army, I'm kitbashing my Leman Russes with Predators so they don't look woefully stupid. Or Chimeras.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Actually, the Sherman tank was an excellent piece of hardware, definitely equivalent (if differently prioritized) to a Panzer IV.
The Leman Russ's capabilities are dependent on who is writing i, sadly, like most things in 40k. Personally, I view it as a capable, durable, and reliable main battle tank, generally better than average armor and firepower, but low speed and poor communication/sensors.
Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that you can actually glace shots straight into the turret and has a profile bigger then a bloody office building. You could write a book on how awfully designed the Leman Russ is, and why it would suck in combat to use. The only difference between the Leman Russ and the Halo Scoprion is that the Leman Russ is at least stated to be awesome and powerful and has some legitimately lethal armaments. Not to mention Imperial magi tech which somehow works despite everything saying otherwise.
Psienesis wrote: ... you're trying to argue realism in 40K, which has no place here.
The LR has been used by the Imperium since the era of the Great Crusade to conquer the galaxy. That is all that needs be said about its capabilities.
You can conquer anything with a sufficient number of it. Even if you can't penetrate the enemy armor, you can make enough of them to generate a black hole.
Wyzilla wrote: Realistically the thing should die in droves considering how bad the chassis is.
It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
Just to clarify, Hammerheads were outnumbered 5-1 by an armoured company, not LRs specifically. As such there could also have been hellhound or devil dogs or malcadors or chimeras (i know they aren't tanks but they could have been there too) ect, and there's no telling what Russes they had with them either. Of course a Hammerhead will beat a punisher or eradicator since they couldn't hurt the Hammerhead. We also know that the Russes never got in range, which means (since battle cannon range and rail gun range is the same) they didn't have LRBT or Vanquishers with them, which are by far the biggest, if not only, threats to a Hammerhead. Also the Hammerheads weren't alone, they were part of an armour interdiction cadre, which also contains Skyrays and who knows how many different varieties of suits. Lastly this was during the Damocles Gulf Crusade, which, unless I am mistaken, was commanded by an incompetent general.
So not a very good source on LR survivability, if for no other reason than being too vague.
My own thoughts on the LR is, it is a really tough, really slow metal box with a lot of fire power. But this opinion is mostly formed on table top performance and the Dawn of War series.
Wyzilla wrote: Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that
By that argument, the only tanks in 40k that are any good are Eldar, which are the only tank designs that are reasonably designed for a futuristic war-- no, Tau designs aren't either, they're pretty crap.
Wyzilla wrote: Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that
By that argument, the only tanks in 40k that are any good are Eldar, which are the only tank designs that are reasonably designed for a futuristic war-- no, Tau designs aren't either, they're pretty crap.
So its confirmed that wave serpents are op?
Also where exactly in which book was the whole 5-1 thing?
Even in most fluff they aren't particularly durable. They die in droves in Gunheads, as well as every Gaunt's Ghost book they feature in and most of the SM books I've seen them in.
Like most things in the Imperium, they compensate against xeno equivalents via sheer numbers.
They are a good tank for the imperium humans though, it's just that all aliens they fight are either so freakishly advanced that your mind cannot comprehend, pretty damn advanced, or orks. The Russ is probably just as survivable as our tanks, compared to the weapons used by humans.
Wyzilla wrote: Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that
By that argument, the only tanks in 40k that are any good are Eldar, which are the only tank designs that are reasonably designed for a futuristic war-- no, Tau designs aren't either, they're pretty crap.
Eldar tanks are actually among the worst designed by far. It's their usage that is extremely competent, with the zoom and boom idea.
Now if only Eldar actually won battles.
Also, the Space Marine Rhino is actually a very good tank, as it's based off a real world APC. Hell it even has suspension. The Forge World Baneblades also don't look that bad either excluding their shear mindbogglingly huge size.
Wyzilla wrote: Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that
By that argument, the only tanks in 40k that are any good are Eldar, which are the only tank designs that are reasonably designed for a futuristic war-- no, Tau designs aren't either, they're pretty crap.
So its confirmed that wave serpents are op?
Also where exactly in which book was the whole 5-1 thing?
BlaxicanX wrote: Even in most fluff they aren't particularly durable. They die in droves in Gunheads, as well as every Gaunt's Ghost book they feature in and most of the SM books I've seen them in.
Like most things in the Imperium, they compensate against xeno equivalents via sheer numbers.
In the case of Gunheads, they were being bombed, swarmed by tens of thousands of ork boyz, stomped by a rampaging gargantuan squiggoth, shot at by a baneblade turned battle-fortress and at the mercy of a vain-glorious idiot whose mission parameters conflicted with their survival. So there's a reason they didn't perform that well there.
Also against their ork counter-parts, its the Leman-russ that can usually find itself out-numbered.
That'd be fair enough if many of them had simply been ground down by sustained attacks. A lot of them were simply being one-shotted, though. The cats who got merc'd by the tank bustah's bomb-on-a-stick thingy comes to mind.
Furyou Miko wrote: Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
FAV14 suggests that from the front, its armour is pretty much the toughest anything can possibly be in the 41st millenium. Nothing, not even planetary defence bunkers, not even Imperator titans, has stronger than armour 14.
That said, any smart opponent will flank them, which isn't hard to do because they're slow. They can barely grind along at infantry walking speed under the current rules, and even the previous, fluffier ones had them being like RNLI lifeboats - not the fasted boats around, but they'll do those fifteen knots through a typhoon just as well as they'll do them through open seas.
Their game stats are decently reflective of the fluff. They are slow, but very tough on the front, with a substantial amount of firepower.
In Epic their formations really shine. They are one of the toughest non super heavy formations in the game.
You have to watch the fluff from codexes because IG are always the low level BG that the the GG takes out to show how boss they are.
Wyzilla wrote: Armor and capability don't matter at all when the Leman Russ is so poorly designed that
By that argument, the only tanks in 40k that are any good are Eldar, which are the only tank designs that are reasonably designed for a futuristic war-- no, Tau designs aren't either, they're pretty crap.
Eldar tanks are actually among the worst designed by far.
Holofields say otherwise. They're the only tank that actually makes use of futuristic technology to defend itself. The imperium has hologram generators, and the Tau probably does, too. But only the Eldar are intelligent enough to actually make use of them, and use them in a way that also fools electronic methods of tracking targets.
Furyou Miko wrote: Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
The OP asked how survivable they are. I answered. It's everyone else that's derailing this.
They're not very survivable at all against Tau.
When hit by a rail gun, it the vacuum effect is so strong that the Russ's crew will be sucked out the exit hole as a human jelly smear, meaning even a hit that doesn't hit the engine or ammo storage will still kill the thing.
Like Big Blind Bill said, the LR is great if you're facing Imperial or Chaos forces, because their tech sucks. You put it up against alien tanks, and they die in droves. It just doesn't have a way to deal with lances or gauss or rail guns.
They do. Lascannons, and big cannons firing away. Nothing says I love you like a Vanquisher firing.
Furyou Miko wrote: Fortunately, this is a thread about Leman Russ, not about Tau Teh Awezums.
Like Big Blind Bill said, the LR is great if you're facing Imperial or Chaos forces, because their tech sucks. You put it up against alien tanks, and they die in droves. It just doesn't have a way to deal with lances or gauss or rail guns.
Just to clarify, my point isn't that the leman russ is bad vs xenos races. My point is that 40k fluff varies greatly depending on which faction is being highlighted.
In the imperial fluff, the leman russ is usually recognised as being a robust and capable battle tank.
However, because the leman russ is so well known and widely used whenever there is a xenos attack against the imperium it is usually the leman russ' job to explode spectacularly, to show how great and powerful the xenos are.
In SM novels they are toned down, so as not to overshadow the marines. And in gaunt's ghosts rebel leman russes are reliably dispatched by light infantry, because the Tanith 1st are literally gods of war.
Fact is, fluff can give very biased perspectives depending on who is writing it and for what purpose.
I would personally say a leman russ is going to stay around for a long time against all but the most prepared or deadly opponent.
Lexicanum lists its armour thickness as being around 150mm. For a comparison a rhino has 60 mm, and a wave serpent has 15mm of armour.
Whilst in a sci-fi world of forcefields and fictional materials this is not conclusive, it does give an indication that the leman russ is particularly durable when compared to other vehicles of a similar size.
I can't actually remember any Leman Russ under Chaos control in the Gaunt's Ghosts books. They're usually fielding Urdeshi knock-offs with T-numbers.
Then again, the same passages also comment on how they're inferior because they don't have the Imperial technology that lets their vehicles aim and fire on the move like RL tanks... which game-stat Imperial tanks don't have either.
BlaxicanX wrote: That'd be fair enough if many of them had simply been ground down by sustained attacks. A lot of them were simply being one-shotted, though. The cats who got merc'd by the tank bustah's bomb-on-a-stick thingy comes to mind.
Really fun book, by the way. Classic 40Kimo.
If you're going to call it "Classic 40K", then that should explain why characters-not-the-protagonists are dying in droves.
Remember that tech level in the Imperium isn't consistent (same with the way people fight.) and the nature of STC is that you can essentially build the same class of vehicle out of different materials (including different quality), run it off different powerplants/fuels, etc. That's going to lead to some variation in performance as well - a Russ designed by a 19th century industry is not going to behave the same way as one based on a 20th century (or something closer to 'current' Imperial, such as out of ceramite, adamantium, plasteel, etc.) Its even possible for contrasting or variable tech levels to be mixed in the same vehicle (the prime example is from Imperial Armour 1, with the tank that has a steam engine and mind impulse links.)
It also doesn't help that 'durability' of a battle tank in a modern context is more than a little complicated compared to how it was 50-100 years ago (WW1/WW2 era roughly) - the principles and dynamics by which HEAT and APFSDS penetrate armour and the methods by which that armour defeats the attack differs, and it differs even between HEAT and APFSDS as well (the general rule of thumb seems to be kinetic penetrators are better at penetrating armour than shaped charges.) You can also have differences due to different armour schemes (Explosive and non explosive reactive armour, spaced armour, composite armour, etc.) and from what I've read it gets even more complicated as some tricks like sloping work good against certain attacks with certian kinds of armours but are useless against others (EG spaced armour.)
As far as the Tau vs Imperium goes, the Codex depiction in the Hammerhead entry isn't just about tech level or the virtues of the tank itself as it was depicted, it was the tactics and terrain they engaged the Imperium in that helped significantly as well (Basically they had the advantage in terrain that played to their strengths, they were engaged by an enemy their tactics were - conveniently - optimized for, etc.) Not to mention that we dont know much more beyond it was 'Imperial tanks' they engaged (whcihc ould mean a great many things, not just a Leman Russ... and even if they were all Russes we dont know what specific designs were there, etc.) So there is alot of context to consider.
Also the quote was 'at least 5 to one odds', so that is simply the LOWEST end of the ratio.
Edit: Also this does assume you put any stock in the accuracy of the model/artwork of the vehicle in question insofar as design goes. Artwork and designs for 40K vehicles have changed rather dramatically over the years, but even apart from that the artwork quite often depicts something that contradicts what the fluff actually says. For example a number of sources indicate Russes use 120mm shells, are depicted to be able to carry anywhere from 36-40 of them in their magazine, and can be loaded by hand. The actual model/artwork typically depcits a cannon which is at least a good 250-300+mm in caliber (to put this in perspective thats as big as a short barreled, 10-12" battleship gun, and those shells are between 1-1.5m long, and mass hundreds of kilos for the shell not INCLUDING propellant or casing. It would be very hard to cram 36-40 of those into a tank the size of the Russ without installing some sort of pocket dimension, nevermind loading them into the turret!)
Furyou Miko wrote: I can't actually remember any Leman Russ under Chaos control in the Gaunt's Ghosts books. They're usually fielding Urdeshi knock-offs with T-numbers.
Then again, the same passages also comment on how they're inferior because they don't have the Imperial technology that lets their vehicles aim and fire on the move like RL tanks... which game-stat Imperial tanks don't have either.
There was a Daemon-possessed Leman Russ that stalked Gaunt and some of the Ghosts in 'Armour of Contempt' I believe.
Big Blind Bill wrote: I would personally say a leman russ is going to stay around for a long time against all but the most prepared or deadly opponent.
Lexicanum lists its armour thickness as being around 150mm. For a comparison a rhino has 60 mm, and a wave serpent has 15mm of armour.
Bear in mind that there is alot about the armour ratings we don't know. Pre-IA fluff noted the armour thickness was variable (like 45mm to 200mm for the Russ I remember) and the IA1 (1st and 2nd edition, but not the really really old IA1 that was put out back in like 3rd edition or so I believe.) but we dont know what the exact composition is, nor if it is bare hull or if it includes extra/add on armour plates/panels/etc. (Ablative, spaced, reactive, etc.) It is also worth noting that modern tank armour thicknesses (in RHA terms) are actually equivalencies - an approximation to how many mm of steel the armour is supposed to protect like (or how much the weapon would penetrate.) and those are not only very broad approximations, they are context sensitive - eg tanks have an RHAe rating against HEAT AND against KE penetrators, and the former tends to be much higher than the latter.
From various discussions I've seen if you take away the armour modules/panels on many tanks (EG like reactive armour) their actual 'bare' hull thicknesses aren't much better (and in some cases may even be worse, like with side armor) than the Leman Russ.
TheCustomLime wrote: If we are talking about WW2 analogues I would liken the Leman Russ to a T34. Great armor, good gun, crappy comms and varying crew quality.
If we wanted to create a T-34 Warhammer profile, it'd be somewhere around a predator with dozer
The thing with t-34 is it's minimalistical yet robust design. It was easier to maintain, it weathered harsh conditions better and it was easier to produce. And all that without going lower than average on combat abilities.
Probably same goes to Leman Russ. But in this case, the front and side armor of Leman Russ are very tough. I'd compare it more with a hybrid of Tiger mass and guns and T-34 robust minimalistical design. Without the numerous Tiger expluatational drawbacks.
TheCustomLime wrote: If we are talking about WW2 analogues I would liken the Leman Russ to a T34. Great armor, good gun, crappy comms and varying crew quality.
If we wanted to create a T-34 Warhammer profile, it'd be somewhere around a predator with dozer
The thing with t-34 is it's minimalistical yet robust design. It was easier to maintain, it weathered harsh conditions better and it was easier to produce. And all that without going lower than average on combat abilities.
Probably same goes to Leman Russ. But in this case, the front and side armor of Leman Russ are very tough. I'd compare it more with a hybrid of Tiger mass and guns and T-34 robust minimalistical design. Without the numerous Tiger expluatational drawbacks.
The T-34 is a very accurate comparison against the Xenos M4A3E8 in Korea or moreso the up-armed Israeli M4A1 during the Six Day War. Actually, the Six-Day War seems to have a lot in common with the Damocles Crusade.
The Leman Russ is as survivable and powerful as it needs to be for the piece of fluff.
Pask's fluff has him driving up to Titans in his trusty LRBT and taking them out with a single shot from his battlecannon. He crushes silly Tau in battle, blows apart legions of Orcs, and even gives Chaos Space Marines pause.
In the Tau codex, Longstrike takes out an armored column of Leman Russes by himself.
In the Space Marine codex, both traitor Russes and anything Tau gets butchered indiscriminately. Hell, in the 5th edition (I haven't really read the 6th yet) Space Marine codex, it states the Tau only manage to survive the Ultramarines + Friends onslaught because Tyranids are scarier than Warhammer's Space Goats.
As for a balanced approach? Yes, the Leman Russ is quite survivable. It can stand up to the vast majority of opponents in the galaxy, and anything outside of a tank or Terminator Armor equivalent is probably going to be turned into a fine, pink/blue/green mist because of it's armament. Of course there are weapons designed to destroy armor (Railguns and Meltas), will obliterate a Leman Russ, but that's to be expected.
On top of that, the Imperium seems to be able to produce ten Leman Russ for everyone that goes down.
*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)
*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).
In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.
*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)
*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).
In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.
That sounds about right. It's a good tank for it's cost, simple, and powerful.
*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)
*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).
In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.
It's firepower depends on the model. A normal Leman Russ IIRC has something like a 120mm cannon off the modern Abrams tank, which while impressive by modern day standards, isn't anything like a lascannon or plasma cannon in terms of penetration.
*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)
*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).
In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.
It's firepower depends on the model. A normal Leman Russ IIRC has something like a 120mm cannon off the modern Abrams tank, which while impressive by modern day standards, isn't anything like a lascannon or plasma cannon in terms of penetration.
The main Battle Cannon has more in common with a howitzer than a 120mm smoothbore gun. It fires massive high explosive shells to blow the gak out of enemy positions before sweeping the place with bolter fire. A Vanquisher is your 120mm equivalent, but on a much higher scale.
It depends on whether you go with the fluff or the artwork/model/schematics, because the fluff (including the technical details see here.
If you go with the fluff, then you have to pretty much ignore a nubmer of facts about the Russ design, whereas if you go with the model you more or less have to ignore the fluff. Or, I suppose you could split the difference and figure both are messed up, or that both are equally true.
And Vanquishers are literally in the same boat, except longer barrels and even more inconisstency when it comes to the ammo (supposedly firing fin stabilized ammo, although it snot easy using that out of rifled barrels which would be more suited to APDS, whilst the IA1 diagram shows an Armor-piercing composite rigid.) And if that doesn't make your head explode, there's how augur shells are either HESH (by fluff) or shaped charge (by visuals) as well.
But that's in line with the nature of certian 40K weapons (like the bolter, which is often claimed to be a gyrojet even though it has a rifled barrel. I won't even bother mentioning the casings and the fluff/visuals lunacy that causes.)
All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.
It is awesome. It is not the best tank (Eldar, Necron and Tau MBTs outstrip in fluff at least, and the IoM definitely has tanks more powerful), but it is strong, and extremely cost effective.
Even in real life 'best tank' isn't something that's easily dictated simply because it can differ based on lots of other factors. Like in the Cold War era, both the West and the Soviets had rather different ideas about what tanks were used for, and this shaped their design ideas differently.
Even when it comes to 'technical' or 'engineering' stuff, comparisons aren't easy (technology doesnt' follow some linear RTS-esque 'plateau' organization.. its quite a bit messier than that, and involves complex ideas like making tradeoffs/sacrifices for a given capability.)
And sometimes you learn surprising facts. Like for some tank designs, fuel tanks (filled fuel tanks, mind) and the engine are considered to contribute to its armour and survivability (because again, modern tanks are generally rated in RHAe because they are estimating what protection would be if the tank did have homogenous armour.)
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
I think that's all anyone needs to read to ignore the rest of what you wrote.
It's ugly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Connor MacLeod wrote: Even in real life 'best tank' isn't something that's easily dictated simply because it can differ based on lots of other factors. Like in the Cold War era, both the West and the Soviets had rather different ideas about what tanks were used for, and this shaped their design ideas differently.
Even when it comes to 'technical' or 'engineering' stuff, comparisons aren't easy (technology doesnt' follow some linear RTS-esque 'plateau' organization.. its quite a bit messier than that, and involves complex ideas like making tradeoffs/sacrifices for a given capability.)
And sometimes you learn surprising facts. Like for some tank designs, fuel tanks (filled fuel tanks, mind) and the engine are considered to contribute to its armour and survivability (because again, modern tanks are generally rated in RHAe because they are estimating what protection would be if the tank did have homogenous armour.)
... except this isn't about (in theory) whether it is the best tank. It's about how survivable it is... and the answer is that it is too slow to dictate numbers in an engagement. Against anything faster than it, they'll die off like flies, because they can only roll forward slowly while Eldar or Tau tanks can sip in, fire a bunch, and flee when numbers turn against them.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.
The Leman Russ is a garbage design that shouldn't even survive long at all in actual combat. No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.
As I see it, the LR is the 'lasgun tank'. Highly cost-effective, easy to make and maintain, but one-on-one it can't quite match the other tanks - except through numbers, which it does well due to previously mentioned advantages.
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
I think that's all anyone needs to read to ignore the rest of what you wrote.
It's ugly.
Wyzilla wrote:
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.
The Leman Russ is a garbage design that shouldn't even survive long at all in actual combat. No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.
Read what I said:
"Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise."
And yes, its not beautiful in the conventional sense, but its ugly bulk covered in guns speaks to me.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.
CREEEEEEEEED wrote: All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.
Don't forget the lascannon and HK option.
Like I said, a bunker on tracks, so three heavy bolters, large explodey turret, and a big missile, true beauty as the enemies of the Emprah fall in droves.
Wyzilla wrote: No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.
A small note: angled armor actually has disadvantages compared to normal armor, especially against infantry anti-tank, which is often launched from elevated positions. The angled armor is, itself, not inherently better, it just changes the angle at which shots hit it. If a shot still hits it at a 90% angle, all benefits of the angled armor are removed.
Angled armor is thus great against other tanks, but not so great against artillery, infantry fire, airstrikes, etc.
But even WITH the lack of angled armor, the Leman Russ still has better armor value in-game than many of the tanks mentioned as being superior to it. Or, in other words, It has better front armor than them in SPITE of the lack of angled armor.
I'm not sure its belly is that exposed in the sense of lesser armor, either, unless that's not what you meant? And it has other armaments that can take out other nearby targets. I actually recall the LRBT having a suspension in one of the cut-away images of it, with springs involved somehow; this may be 2nd edition lore however, it might not be true any more, but I haven't seen evidence of a retcon.
And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture, which is why it's a much more practical mass production tank than any of the other examples that you mentioned.
koooaei wrote: What are you guyz talking about - it's an awesome-looking tank. So grimdark!
Finally, someone who agrees.
Actually model a Vanquisher turrent on a King Tiger Hull, and you have a very hot looking tank. A king Tiger turrent on a chimera hull has a similar much more evil look. Just saying...
Mmm..now I'm wanting to take the old armored company out for a spin.
And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture
Wait how?
Giving additional room and space inside allows for ease of manufacture, maintenance, and repair.
It is wasteful and allows for a very easy target. There is literaly no rational excuse for the leman russ except from "GW wanted it to look rugged and primitive".
Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.
Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.
You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).
Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.
Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.
You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).
The feth? That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force as it has zero defense against enemy aircraft, SAMs, or anti aircraft fire. They want to retire it for good reason, it's a worthless plane only good for shooting at insurgents instead of an actual war. Even its original job as a tank killer is outdated, its 30mm gatling cannon would now be fairly useless against modern armor like the T-90. Hence why it's being replaced with drones or the F-35 carrying a bunch of guided missiles, which are far superior to the A-10's cannon. Also part of the reason why the old AC-130 gunships are being gutted and having everything but the 30mm cannon torn out and replaced with missiles.
Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.
Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.
You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).
It doesn't quite work that way. Ease of production would be an argument if there was a positive correlation between huge size and production yet there isn't. There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house. I also argue that the Imperium's ressources aren't as unlimited as you claim. As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one. This doesn't even touch the tactical disadvanges that come from the tank's "unique" form and which will only lead to more repairs (in the best case) or more replacement orders as compared to a sensible tank. Being a huge block of metal does not make the Leman Russ design simple or efficient. It just makes it easy to hit and a drain on ressources which could be better used to produce more tanks. There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.
The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.
There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.
As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.
The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.
There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.
This is imo the only context in which the Leman Russ makes sense, as the product of ancient close minded dogma and simple lack of knowledge/ interest on how to do better.
As such the Russ is an outgrowth of the Imperium's overall state and not the product of any rational tankmaking process.
As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.
The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.
There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.
This is imo the only context in which the Leman Russ makes sense, as the product of ancient close minded dogma and simple lack of knowledge/ interest on how to do better.
As such the Russ is an outgrowth of the Imperium's overall state and not the product of any rational tankmaking process.
Not really. While still ungodly huge, the Forge World Baneblade variants have sloped armor, covered tracks, and appear to have suspension.
Wyzilla wrote: That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force
The A-10 can carry far more missiles than the overly expensive mess of mediocrity that is the F-35, and can loiter longer to use them, both in terms of survivability, turn rate, and fuel usage. The A-10 is superior to that waste of money when it comes to Close Air Support-- the primary mission of any aircraft in modern wars.
There's very little actual combat experience any more in air superiority, because the wars between superpowers that you reference haven't actually happened. What HAS actually happened is what you call "shooting insurgents". That's what we've been doing for the past twenty plus years, in case you haven't noticed.
It's better to have a CAS specialist and an Air Superiority specialist than one massively more expensive generalist that doesn't do as good as either of the above.
KingDeath wrote: There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house.
The actual size of the Leman Russ varies between artistic renditions, so I'm not so sure you should take the model seriously in that regard.
KingDeath wrote: There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.
The feth? That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force as it has zero defense against enemy aircraft, SAMs, or anti aircraft fire. They want to retire it for good reason, it's a worthless plane only good for shooting at insurgents instead of an actual war. Even its original job as a tank killer is outdated, its 30mm gatling cannon would now be fairly useless against modern armor like the T-90. Hence why it's being replaced with drones or the F-35 carrying a bunch of guided missiles, which are far superior to the A-10's cannon. Also part of the reason why the old AC-130 gunships are being gutted and having everything but the 30mm cannon torn out and replaced with missiles.
The F-35 moves to fast too identify targets on the ground and it burns fuel too fast to have an acceptable loiter time over the battlefield.
The A-10 is vastly superior in terms of survivability to its closest counterpart, the AH-64 Apache. The A-10 is tougher and faster, making it harder to hit with small arms.
The F-35 currently carries too few missiles to be useful as a weapons platform. It's too slow- in terms of raw speed, turning speed, or its ability to climb- to be worthwhile as a dog fighter. The vertical-landing version currently has problems because it melts landing ship decks with its engines.
The F-35 is going to go down in history as the next F-105 Thunderchief.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.
So, here's the real question that re-focuses the OP's original statement.
If you're a tanker in the 40k universe, what do you want to be behind the wheel of- a Lemar Russ? A Predator? A Hammerhead? A Falcon?
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
I met an old WWII Vet who was in a refurbishing unit or maintenance unit for American tanks, it was one of his jobs to scrub out the tank of the remains of the crew after it was knocked out by German tanks or anti-tank gunners. That had to be pretty horrible mucking out those things. They would repair them and get it back into action.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Leman Russ tanks only come in herds right?
OP If you're asking how tough is the Leman Russ in game, then the answer is very tough, it's a rolling slab of armour. Its side plating is as good as the frontal plating of a lot of other tanks. Railguns and lances can take them down, but they can also take down a land raider or a super heavy, so that doesn't say very much in my opinion. Their disadvantages are low speed, fairly average accuracy and they lack the dedicated anti-tank loadout available to the predator. So although it is a lighter vehicle, a predator's multiple lascannons, coupled with higher accuracy give it the edge.
If you're asking how tough are they in the fluff, I remember a scene in one of the sw novels in which marines are steering clear of a traitor tank until heavy support arrives. So they are a force to be reckoned with. Certainly low tech compared to a fire prism or hammerhead, so there's depictions of Tau or Eldar trashing them, but they do have the advantage of durability, and have respectable firepower. It often depends on what you're reading, its all very biased towards the race in question.
BlaxicanX 625892 wrote:Even in most fluff they aren't particularly durable. They die in droves in Gunheads, as well as every Gaunt's Ghost book they feature in and most of the SM books I've seen them in.
Like most things in the Imperium, they compensate against xeno equivalents via sheer numbers.
Right.
Leman russes aren't exactly flimsy, but they're not holofield falcons, or wave serpents, or disruption pod hammerheads, or land raiders. Both in game and in fluff, russes are only mediumly durable.
What makes russes relatively hardy is that, unlike basically everything else in the codex, they don't have to worry about small arms. They can wade through stuff that would slaughter an infantry platoon where it stood, but that's not really saying that much, given how easy it is to kill guardsmen. Given a few decent guns, and russes really only meet the bare minimum for what you need to be a tank.
Where the leman russ is properly good is like how guardsmen are good - not in individual rugged durability or individual firepower - but in the fact that you can absurdly mass-produce them and they require virtually no maintenance. The imperium fights against everybody simultaneously, while everyone else more or less only fights against the imperium, because the imperium has a terrifying logistics system.
Leman Russ tanks at one point were actually the heaviest armored tanks in the game (including side/rear) and Leman Russ turret armor was superior to any armor facing on a Land Raider.
Wyzilla wrote: That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force
The A-10 can carry far more missiles than the overly expensive mess of mediocrity that is the F-35, and can loiter longer to use them, both in terms of survivability, turn rate, and fuel usage. The A-10 is superior to that waste of money when it comes to Close Air Support-- the primary mission of any aircraft in modern wars.
There's very little actual combat experience any more in air superiority, because the wars between superpowers that you reference haven't actually happened. What HAS actually happened is what you call "shooting insurgents". That's what we've been doing for the past twenty plus years, in case you haven't noticed.
It's better to have a CAS specialist and an Air Superiority specialist than one massively more expensive generalist that doesn't do as good as either of the above.
KingDeath wrote: There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house.
The actual size of the Leman Russ varies between artistic renditions, so I'm not so sure you should take the model seriously in that regard.
KingDeath wrote: There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
EmpNortonII wrote: If you're a tanker in the 40k universe, what do you want to be behind the wheel of- a Lemar Russ? A Predator? A Hammerhead? A Falcon?
As far as MBTs go, probably the Falcon. I wouldn't want to be in combat at all, but if I was in combat I'd prefer to avoid fire than take it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII
Which hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen, so that's irrelevant.
And the A-10 being outdated is a reason to build a new CAS plane, not to throw money in to a piece of crap like the F-35, which is a miserable failure at everything it tries to be.
You can use drones for air superiority, you realize. In fact, they're better at it, as they aren't restricted by the pilot's biology and don't need to have a special cockpit, and thus are more maneuverable and smaller than planes.
It's durable, it has a good turn rate, and it has good armament. Which makes it better at its job than the F-35, which is mediocre-at-best and terrible at worst.
There is nothing that the F-35 can do in regards to CAS missions that a properly deployed A-10 can't do better.
Nothing. Not even with its VTOL can it do what the A-10 can do, because it'd just get its ass torn up by enemy fire due to its flimsy, gakky armor, whereas the A-10 can actually take a beating and keep laying down fire, and then make it back to base safe and sound. The F-35 is an abject lesson in failed engineering projects.
Wyzilla wrote: That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force
The A-10 can carry far more missiles than the overly expensive mess of mediocrity that is the F-35, and can loiter longer to use them, both in terms of survivability, turn rate, and fuel usage. The A-10 is superior to that waste of money when it comes to Close Air Support-- the primary mission of any aircraft in modern wars.
There's very little actual combat experience any more in air superiority, because the wars between superpowers that you reference haven't actually happened. What HAS actually happened is what you call "shooting insurgents". That's what we've been doing for the past twenty plus years, in case you haven't noticed.
It's better to have a CAS specialist and an Air Superiority specialist than one massively more expensive generalist that doesn't do as good as either of the above.
KingDeath wrote: There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house.
The actual size of the Leman Russ varies between artistic renditions, so I'm not so sure you should take the model seriously in that regard.
KingDeath wrote: There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
This is literally the only place I've ever heard this about the A-10. It's generally got a stellar mission capable rate, large combat load, very durable airframe, excellent capabilities against a wide variety of targets, and is relatively cheap to maintain and deploy. AFAIK anywhere they didn't allow A-10's to fly applied to lots of other aircraft as well, largely anything that wasn't attacking from high altitudes, never just specifically the A-10, usually because there were intact and capable air defense networks.
No current drone that I can think of (or even any in development that I know of) has anything like the capabilities of something like an A-10 or is deployed in large "swarms". Not the Predator, not the Firescout, not the UCAS, or Globalhawk or any of the like. By the same token, the F-35 disaster certainly isn't going to even duplicate, much less surpass, the 40something-year-old A-10's capabilities.
Wyzilla wrote: That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force
The A-10 can carry far more missiles than the overly expensive mess of mediocrity that is the F-35, and can loiter longer to use them, both in terms of survivability, turn rate, and fuel usage. The A-10 is superior to that waste of money when it comes to Close Air Support-- the primary mission of any aircraft in modern wars.
There's very little actual combat experience any more in air superiority, because the wars between superpowers that you reference haven't actually happened. What HAS actually happened is what you call "shooting insurgents". That's what we've been doing for the past twenty plus years, in case you haven't noticed.
It's better to have a CAS specialist and an Air Superiority specialist than one massively more expensive generalist that doesn't do as good as either of the above.
KingDeath wrote: There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house.
The actual size of the Leman Russ varies between artistic renditions, so I'm not so sure you should take the model seriously in that regard.
KingDeath wrote: There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.
ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
This is literally the only place I've ever heard this about the A-10. It's generally got a stellar mission capable rate, large combat load, very durable airframe, excellent capabilities against a wide variety of targets, and is relatively cheap to maintain and deploy. AFAIK anywhere they didn't allow A-10's to fly applied to lots of other aircraft as well, largely anything that wasn't attacking from high altitudes, never just specifically the A-10, usually because there were intact and capable air defense networks.
No current drone that I can think of (or even any in development that I know of) has anything like the capabilities of something like an A-10 or is deployed in large "swarms". Not the Predator, not the Firescout, not the UCAS, or Globalhawk or any of the like. By the same token, the F-35 disaster certainly isn't going to even duplicate, much less surpass, the 40something-year-old A-10's capabilities.
Of course the A-10 will have a stellar record, you always will get a stellar record for any kind of aircraft when you solely deploy it against targets that can barely even reliably threaten the thing. It's like saying a guy's super tough because all he does is beat up people in wheelchairs. And enemy that lacks SAM batteries, quality AA cannons, or personnel guided missiles isn't going to be much of a threat to an aircraft like the A-10. The problem is that if you fight anything other then Insurgents, like say China, Russia, or even just Iran, you're going to end up with a whole lot of dead pilots.
That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It was never intended to go out and engage hostile forces without there being a CAP in the sky, we've just done so because no recent adversaries have had aircraft which warranted maintaining a CAP. It was always intended to have fighter support, that's just air-combat 101.
That's like complaining that Stukas were bad at combat air support during WW2 because they were easy prey for enemy fighters. Well, they were, but they were supposed to be escorted, and when escorted did great jobs of demolishing enemy armor.
The A-10 also far more able to deal with and survive ground based weapons systems than something like an F-16 or F-35 would. That armor has saved more than one aircraft, likewise so has redundancy of systems.
Stealth likewise is far over-relied on. It only works under certain conditions and from certain angles (particularly on the F-22 and F-35 especially), things like simple rain can still light it up like a lite-bright, etc. Likewise, any external weapons systems (like wing mounted bombs or missiles) will effectively break stealth capabilities. Stealth was defeated by a podunk Serbian AA crew with a 1961 vintage weapons system fifteen years ago and parts of the wrecked aircraft went to both Russian and China by many accounts who now are fielding their own prototype Stealth aircraft, the principles are well known now, relying on Stealth is a wee bit silly.
Stealth is an edge, not a make-or-break capability.
Psienesis wrote: ... but that's true of every tank. Everywhere. All the time.
Immune to small arms, absolutely fethed by anything actually designed to kill a tank.
Wave serpents aren't, though. Neither is anything with a holofield. Same with disruption pods.
Imperium vehicles like russes and preds are screwed over by dedicated anti-tank weapons, which is why they're in the middle of the pack above venoms and raiders and vypers (which you don't need anti-tank weapons for) and below fast skimmers with extra shielding (which anti-tank weapons don't necessarily work as intended on).
On the issue of durability, apparently a russ can survive being rolled over by a battle-wagon or battle-fortress and still perform its job, oddly after having turret damage if Pask's back story is true.
Also if the russ looses its weapons, its well suited to being used as a battering ram, and would probably come out better than the opposing xenos variant.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
Against modern armor pretty much all of its weapons are still perfectly capable. The GAU-8 has shown no lack of effectiveness at all from any information I can find. Likewise, I don't recall any armored vehicle that's walking away from a Hellfire missile, modern or not, likewise 500lb iron bombs are still pretty effective against whatever they're thrown against.
What weapon would you use against modern armor (or any target an A-10 would be thrown against) that an A-10 won't be carrying?
The Gov doesn't keep trying to kill it. There are sections of the Air Force that have tried to kill it, and any other close air support aircraft, since it was developed, because it's not a supersonic awesome interceptor. Every time its come up before a budget committee however, the A-10 gets maintained.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
The Air Force keeps trying to kill the plane because the Air Force doesn't care about CAS.
Only a tiny fraction of Chinese and Russian tank forces are made up of modern tanks. The rest are T-54/55s, T-62s, T-72s, Type 59s and Type 69s... which by your own admission, the A-10 is fine against.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
OH MY GOD JUST SHUT THE F UP ABOUT BLOODY WWIII YOU DUMB S HEAD IT IS GOOD AT WHAT IT DOES, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO KILL RUSSIAN AND CHINESE TANKS, 'CAUSE IT'S ONLY FIGHTING THOSE CRAPPY INSURGENTS, YOU F TARD!!! AND THERE SURE AS HELL ISNT GOING TO BE THIS MYTHICAL WORLD WAR 3, AND IF THERE IS IT'LL BE NUKES NOT PLANES AND TANKS!!!!
ALWAYS ANGRY, ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!
You prepare for what has the ability to threaten your continued survival. Not that which is a minor annoyance, and is stuck in the middle of bum feth nowhere.
But as for WWIII, it is inevitable, and it will not involve carpet glassing, because nobody has the balls to let loose everything. But a single tactical nuke followed up with conventional warfare after softening up the enemy forces with nuclear bombardment, as per modern Russian doctrine? Very real and very probable. Of course, then there's the greater misconception that nukes mean the end of the world, except yet we've already detonated two thousand years after the last sixty years or so, with no major affect on Earth except some increased cancer rates in the South West.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
The Air Force keeps trying to kill the plane because the Air Force doesn't care about CAS.
Only a tiny fraction of Chinese and Russian tank forces are made up of modern tanks. The rest are T-54/55s, T-62s, T-72s, Type 59s and Type 69s... which by your own admission, the A-10 is fine against.
Which can also be taken out by automated aircraft that cost a lot less to lose in combat then pilots. A-10's again, are only good for providing CAS against insurgent forces. Not actual armies.
Using the A-10 to justify the existence of the Leman Russ is bs, as the A-10 would not survive WWIII fighting conditions against foes who have varied AA abilities that even infantry can carry. The Imperium however is engaged in constant, permanent total war, with the average enemy being their own people carrying their own weapons. So the Leman Russ is constantly going up against AT weapons.... and dies because of it. It's not picking on hapless rebel forces, it's fighting guys with meltaguns, lascannons, rocket launchers, and autocannons. People who can take advantage of the Leman Russ being an ungodly abomination of a tank with a hilariously massive slew of crippling flaws that can be exploited to massacre the tank with proper weapons. You don't even need to blow it up, with its exposed tracks you can do simple mission kill things, like fuse the tracks to the tank's body with some high-energy munitions. Or hide in an area full or mud or derbies, which would gimp the tank's offensive ability due to the Russ lacking suspension. Fight purely in entrenched fortifications so the Leman Russ sticks out of the open with its massive profile to make for easy strikes against the turret. Etc.
It's a piece of gak tank that has no right to exist. Poorly made, poorly designed, the only reason why it persists is because of the technological stagnation of the Imperium at this current stage.
Your hilariously insane bias against the A-10 is not based on reality, logic, or rational thought, sadly, so I'm not sure there's a reason for me to continue this conversation, however amusing it was for a while. I will however reiterate that the F-35 is an expensive piece of gak that doesn't do what it's built to do. It's an inferior air superiority plane to modern Russian and Chinese air superiority planes, it's an inferior CAS plane to any purpose-built CAS planes, and its vtol capability is pretty much worthless. The F-35 isn't even released yet, and it's already obsolete.
The Leman Russ, thankfully, does not have any of those problems, it is an effective, durable tank that does what it's built to do. It's not the MOST durable tank, but in terms of raw capacity to take damage and not give a damn, it's better than the other MBTs within 40k, which tend to prefer to avoid damage, but are far less capable of taking it.
You've angered CREEED and distracted from his favorite topic - really big tanks. Can we get back On Topic?
IN ancient times a Leman was the heavy in the game outside of the landraider. It could even fire from off the table, something nothing else could do.
Fluffwise as noted it tough. Super advanced ships with dedicated antitank are better one on one, but its never one on one, and in those instances Lemans can rely on artillery and its own antitank variants.
Another interesting discussion is, what tank is better than a Leman or one of its many variants in the anti infantry or light skimmer context? Your standard Leman has a nice battlecannon, two heavy bolters, and the lascannon could be swapped out for another if desired. Other variants have autocannon, plasma cannon, etc. Thats a lot of dakka.
KingDeath wrote: It is wasteful and allows for a very easy target. There is literaly no rational excuse for the leman russ except from "GW wanted it to look rugged and primitive".
Quite correct. I wouldn't waste a thought on trying to assess the practicality of 90% of stuff in 40k. It looks the way it does because its intended to be distinctive and cool.
Melissia wrote: Your hilariously insane bias against the A-10 is not based on reality, logic, or rational thought, sadly, so I'm not sure there's a reason for me to continue this conversation, however amusing it was for a while. I will however reiterate that the F-35 is an expensive piece of gak that doesn't do what it's built to do. It's an inferior air superiority plane to modern Russian and Chinese air superiority planes, it's an inferior CAS plane to any purpose-built CAS planes, and its vtol capability is pretty much worthless. The F-35 isn't even released yet, and it's already obsolete.
The Leman Russ, thankfully, does not have any of those problems, it is an effective, durable tank that does what it's built to do. It's not the MOST durable tank, but in terms of raw capacity to take damage and not give a damn, it's better than the other MBTs within 40k, which tend to prefer to avoid damage, but are far less capable of taking it.
Durability doesn't manner when it's form is so gak that in any minimally realistic setting, it would be blown apart with hilarious ease to due terrible, terrible design.
I repeat again, this is a tracked vehicle that lacks suspension. A tank that stands taller then a freaking single story house for some damn reason. There's nothing good about the entire tank, every single square inch of the Leman Russ is awful and looks straight out of WWI, which is not a good thing.
And it being "efficient" doesn't make a lick of sense considering its mass and size would make it a pain to ship in large numbers (whereas with far superior modern tanks you could probably ship those stacked atop each other like pancakes), or how the Leman Russ would need a massive support train behind it considering that due to its lack of suspension, it can only move on smooth surfaces. Put it in a muddy environment or with a lot of bumps and it will either be impossible to move at all, or the crew will all get concussions.
The design shouldn't even exist in the first place, the person who cleared its original production had to be a straight up mentally challenged child to OK that thing. Even the freaking Sherman was better designed then the Leman Russ, and it's straight out of WWII.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Fortunately the primary german fighting vehicle were the Panzer IV and the StuGIII, both of which werre comparable in firepower and armour to the Sherman.
The Panther itself had it's own flaws and i have yet to see a reliable source for the 5/6 M4 for one Panzer V claim. Allied losses certainly show nothing of that kind.
If the US had equipped the Sherman with AP ammo as standard issue, the long 75mm American gun had the penetration of the Soviet 85mm and both could penetrate the Panther or Tiger. The Sherman sucked mainly because all the AP ammo was given to the failed tank destroyers.
Durability doesn't manner when it's form is so gak that in any minimally realistic setting, it would be blown apart with hilarious ease to due terrible, terrible design.
Which 40K isn't. We're told that the LR is the work-horse tank of the IG, and has been used to good effect on countless battlefields across the Imperium since the time of the Great Crusade.
It's apparently "good enough" against the myriad enemies of the Imperium.
Durability doesn't manner when it's form is so gak that in any minimally realistic setting, it would be blown apart with hilarious ease to due terrible, terrible design.
Which 40K isn't. We're told that the LR is the work-horse tank of the IG, and has been used to good effect on countless battlefields across the Imperium since the time of the Great Crusade.
It's apparently "good enough" against the myriad enemies of the Imperium.
Which doesn't speak well about the competency of anyone.
And that's ALL of the enemies of the Imperium, too, not just chaos cultists, but also wayward space marines, tyranids, orks, elda, and the like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: I repeat again, this is a tracked vehicle that lacks suspension.
No, it doesn't. Cut-out art of it has depicted it with an internal suspension in the past.
Wyzilla wrote: A tank that stands taller then a freaking single story house
Depends on the artwork. Some actually have it bigger htan that, and some have it smaller. THough for the life of me, I don't know why you think this is unusual, considering the Abrams isn't much shorter than that at eight feet. That's taller than the room I'm in right now.
Wyzilla wrote: Even the freaking Sherman was better designed then the Leman Russ, and it's straight out of WWII.
The Sherman was one of the best tank designs in WWII-- frankly, it was better designed than anything the Germans had due to their tendency to overengineer things and make them far more complex, expensive, and maintenance-intensive than necessary, and only the T-34 was arguably better than the Sherman as an MBT.
The Leman Russ being compared to the Sherman is not the insult you think it is.
Durability doesn't manner when it's form is so gak that in any minimally realistic setting, it would be blown apart with hilarious ease to due terrible, terrible design.
Which 40K isn't. We're told that the LR is the work-horse tank of the IG, and has been used to good effect on countless battlefields across the Imperium since the time of the Great Crusade.
It's apparently "good enough" against the myriad enemies of the Imperium.
Which doesn't speak well about the competency of anyone.
At all.
... and? Hardly any species in this setting is coming out ahead of its own power-curve, excepting the Tau.
The Necrons are clinging to an empire 60 million years gone. The Eldar are the remnants of a dying race. The Dark Eldar are so culturally fethed up that they cannot hope to advance... eventually, something is going to be the spark to the powderkeg of Commoragh, and then it's Game Over for the Dark Eldar as we know them. The Tyranids are beginning to run out of options, tactics and evolutionary steps. The means of their functions have been divined, and there's a clear (though difficult) path seen towards their defeat (the resources are another matter). The Imperium is, well, the Imperium. It's been on a decline for a long, long time. The Orks have been stagnant since the War in Heaven. The Tau are the only ones who are in a time of ascension... but they are such minor players in the galactic game that it wouldn't take much, from any faction, to really just end them.
Melissia wrote: Your hilariously insane bias against the A-10 is not based on reality, logic, or rational thought, sadly, so I'm not sure there's a reason for me to continue this conversation, however amusing it was for a while. I will however reiterate that the F-35 is an expensive piece of gak that doesn't do what it's built to do. It's an inferior air superiority plane to modern Russian and Chinese air superiority planes, it's an inferior CAS plane to any purpose-built CAS planes, and its vtol capability is pretty much worthless. The F-35 isn't even released yet, and it's already obsolete.
The Leman Russ, thankfully, does not have any of those problems, it is an effective, durable tank that does what it's built to do. It's not the MOST durable tank, but in terms of raw capacity to take damage and not give a damn, it's better than the other MBTs within 40k, which tend to prefer to avoid damage, but are far less capable of taking it.
Durability doesn't manner when it's form is so gak that in any minimally realistic setting, it would be blown apart with hilarious ease to due terrible, terrible design.
I repeat again, this is a tracked vehicle that lacks suspension. A tank that stands taller then a freaking single story house for some damn reason. There's nothing good about the entire tank, every single square inch of the Leman Russ is awful and looks straight out of WWI, which is not a good thing.
And it being "efficient" doesn't make a lick of sense considering its mass and size would make it a pain to ship in large numbers (whereas with far superior modern tanks you could probably ship those stacked atop each other like pancakes), or how the Leman Russ would need a massive support train behind it considering that due to its lack of suspension, it can only move on smooth surfaces. Put it in a muddy environment or with a lot of bumps and it will either be impossible to move at all, or the crew will all get concussions.
The design shouldn't even exist in the first place, the person who cleared its original production had to be a straight up mentally challenged child to OK that thing. Even the freaking Sherman was better designed then the Leman Russ, and it's straight out of WWII.
I would agree with this, the basic Leman Russ really has no real basis in functionality. Hell, its turret wouldn't be big enough for the breach and a single crewman, much less three of them, particularly on the Ordnance bearing models with those gigantic nearly meter-wide-looking bores. Not to mention only having one hatch...
They're cartoony and ww1-steampunky looking, which fits the 40k aesthetic, but the Leman Russ just doesn't work from any sort of realistic perspective. That said, neither do most things in 40k, a Land Raider would have trouble navigating a parking lot speed bump given that it's got basically zero ground clearance.
Vaktathi wrote: Leman Russ tanks at one point were actually the heaviest armored tanks in the game (including side/rear) and Leman Russ turret armor was superior to any armor facing on a Land Raider.
Yep. 25 front turret and 22 side and rear, whereas the land raider was 22 front hull and 20 side/rear. Don't ask me how I can remember that from 15 years ago, but can't remember college stuff I studied 6 months ago
Vaktathi wrote: Leman Russ tanks at one point were actually the heaviest armored tanks in the game (including side/rear) and Leman Russ turret armor was superior to any armor facing on a Land Raider.
Yep. 25 front turret and 22 side and rear, whereas the land raider was 22 front hull and 20 side/rear. Don't ask me how I can remember that from 15 years ago, but can't remember college stuff I studied 6 months ago
Vaktathi wrote: Leman Russ tanks at one point were actually the heaviest armored tanks in the game (including side/rear) and Leman Russ turret armor was superior to any armor facing on a Land Raider.
Yep. 25 front turret and 22 side and rear, whereas the land raider was 22 front hull and 20 side/rear. Don't ask me how I can remember that from 15 years ago, but can't remember college stuff I studied 6 months ago
I don't remember squat from most of my grad school courses, but I can still remember most points costs of almost anything in the twelve year old 3.5E CSM codex
If the middling old lore is to be believed, the Leman Russ is a heavy tank... the Predator is a light tank. The difference in armour? 1 point. And this was in an article talking about the search for the elusive medium tank...
Furyou Miko wrote: If the middling old lore is to be believed, the Leman Russ is a heavy tank... the Predator is a light tank. The difference in armour? 1 point. And this was in an article talking about the search for the elusive medium tank...
I always understood the pred to be a medium, since 2nd ed anyway, with the Russ and Land Raider being Heavy and the Hellhound, Razorback and Chimera being lights. (I know some of these are IFVs, rather than strictly tanks). But their max armour values correspond to that classification anyway (14 Heavy 13 Medium 12 Light)
Melissia wrote: I kind of understood it that way too. 14 heavy, 13 medium, 12 light tank / heavy IFV, 11 IFV/APC, 10 civilian equivalent.
All of it rather abstracted of course.
The wrong way. Armor doesn't make a tank light, medium, heavy, etc. Speed does.
Light tanks are light tanks because they're fast enough to be used to flank enemy armored formations. You get rid of the armor so they can do that. The Baal-Pattern Predator is a light tank.
The LR is too slow to be used as anything but infantry support against non-human tanks.
Well at one point, the standard for "light tank to medium tanks" in the Imperium was the Baneblade according to the old Epic lore. So there is no telling what the Russ is supposed to be.
EmpNortonII wrote: Armor doesn't make a tank light, medium, heavy, etc. Speed does.
True, but in most cases -as you've pointed out-that speed is achieved by limiting armour, so there is usually a correlation between tonnage / armour of vehicles of different designated weight categories, often weaponry too. Where this gets muddled is in comparing tanks of different times (a 1939 Char B heavy tank having lighter armour and wepons than a Panther medium tank of 1945)
EmpNortonII wrote: Armor doesn't make a tank light, medium, heavy, etc. Speed does.
In that case, the Leman russ used to be lighter than the Predator because it could move more while still firing its weapons.
Used to be pretty speedy in 2nd edition as well :lol:
Codex Chaos page 80 wrote:The Leman Russ batlte tank rumbled along the pass, its tracks squealing in protest as the vehicle was driven at speed over the rocky terrain. The steep sides of the gorge rose up menacingly on either side, the black volcanic wlals leaving the pass in permamant shadow. Behind the battle tank came a short column of Imperial Chimeras, the armoured troop carriers multi-lasers swivelling to cover the sides of the pass in case of enemy attack.
...
"How far now?" he continued, trying to put the thought of dameons out of his head.
"Thirteen klicks, sir." the Guardsman replied, checking the instruments in front of him.
"Estimated time till arrival?"
"Eleven minutes, sir."
The battle tank was suddenly shaken by a deep, rumbling blast as a weapon was fired into the pass. Looking through the sights Rosman saw a section of the gulley wall to the right erupt. Much of that part of the gorge wall proceeded to give way, chunks of rock as big as the Leman Russ tumbling down into the pass, partially blocking the reinforcements' route.
A second blast, like a thrumming boom, rocked the tank and over the comm-link Rosman heard a cry of anguish from one of the other vehicles. The tank commander scanned the sides of the pass through the tank's sights but could see nothing. Simultaneously the cliff face behind the tank crumbled, separating the Leman Russ from the rest of the cavalcade.
13 km in 11 minutes works out to ~71 kph. Off road, quite likely. Maybe it ran off the same nuclear powerplant some Chimeras supposedly did at that era.
As far as speed vs armour, that tends to depend on what is favored and a bunch of other factors (like what you're willing to give up to achieve it - firepower, higher costs, etc.) Amazingly, US tanks haven't given up the concept of armour (so much that we've contemplated 70-80 ton Infantry Fighting Vehicles, as I recall) even though you periodically get those ultra-light/fast FCS concepts cropping up from time to time that tries to render armour obsolete.
As far as speed vs armour, that tends to depend on what is favored and a bunch of other factors (like what you're willing to give up to achieve it - firepower, higher costs, etc.) Amazingly, US tanks haven't given up the concept of armour (so much that we've contemplated 70-80 ton Infantry Fighting Vehicles, as I recall) even though you periodically get those ultra-light/fast FCS concepts cropping up from time to time that tries to render armour obsolete.
Yeah... someone needs to take those Army generals who think that you can replace tanks with armored cars into an alley and beat the stupid out of them.
Maybe follow that up with the Air Force generals that want to replace the A-10.
Melissia wrote: Cut-out art of it has depicted it with an internal suspension in the past.
If it's the cut-out art I'm thinking of (from IA1) it says it has a suspension, but it doesn't actually function. There are springs on the wheels, but if they move up more than an inch or two the sides of the tank hit the ground. So, if anything, the cut-out art demonstrates that the LRBT's design is even worse than it looks from the outside, as it has all of the drawbacks of a tank with no suspension on top of the complexity added by all the redundant non-functioning suspension bits. IOW, it's exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of ignorant religious zealots who believe that proper science and engineering are heresy and can only build stuff by mindlessly following the blueprints (even when those blueprints have become corrupted and are obviously wrong).
THough for the life of me, I don't know why you think this is unusual, considering the Abrams isn't much shorter than that at eight feet.
It's not just the height, it's the height relative to the tank's size. The LRBT is ridiculously tall because of suicidally stupid design choices, not because it's a big vehicle that will inevitably be fairly tall.
See previous point about lacking a suspension. The LRBT has maybe an inch or two of ground clearance at most, on anything rougher than a high-quality paved road the sides of the tank will sink into the ground and immobilize it.
... the LR is listed as having almost half a meter of ground clearance. That's more than sufficient for most any terrain. It's only very slightly (0.01m) less than an Abrams.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, it's exactly what you'd expect from a bunch of
Art majors designing tanks?
I'm working off of the assumption that the transmission is intended to work properly, even though GW's employees have no idea how it is supposed to work.
Lets also keep in mind the current Leman Russ kit isn't much different from the original early 90's Leman Russ kit, when *everything* had a much more "early 20th century industrial" vibe, while most other factions have moved away from that.
Space Marine Predators at the time looked like this, representing a design philosophy and visual imagery of primarily first world war vintage.
The new Predator released in 2001 or 2002 and at least looks far more modern (even if still notably "wrong" from a modern tank perspective), it looks much more the part
Here's what the original Leman Russ kit looks like (with updated 3E accessory commander & searchlight). Also a very WW1 looking design, extremely primitive and somewhat cartoony (particularly the small turret with the huge gun)
Here's the updated version. As we can see, not very much has change at all, the turret is a bit wider, the lines on the turret sides are different, it's not quite as cartoony (the updated lascannon bit also helps there) but still has the oversized gun on a very small turret, while the hull is identical in its entirety.
The Leman Russ is a remnant of GW's old imagery, the type of thing you might expect to see in a Ralph Bakshi animated movie. They're not really very practical or modern or functional (trying to repair a road wheel on one of these tanks would require removing half the tank basically), and remain wedded to the "retro" vibe of GW's earlier years that other factions have mostly moved away from.
Its one of my favourites, I just wish it was still in production (apparently some guy in Russia was producing and selling them a few years back. Called them King Russ tank aka Golgotha Assault Tank).
Truth be told I like the design of the Leman Russ. It's ugly, it's stupid and it looks like it would get stuck in a muddy field faster than you can say "German Assault into Soviet Union":. However, it also looks like it's tough as nails and brutish. I don't know, maybe I'm just weird.
Well maybe one of the reasons it functions so well is because belief in the machine-spirit and omnissiah keep it working. Also the russ may utilize technology we are currently un-aware of.
the LR is more the tank equivalent of the metaphor.. the IOM throws them at targets until they break, and enough firepower will get the job done.
the 5:1 thing is in the tau codex (under the hammer head if i recall) but that was to show the hammerheads hit and run capabilities.. in a straight fight the hammer heads will be blown away due to the sheer weight of ordinance thrown about. the hammer head sacrifices durability for manuverbility and equipment.. sure the rail gun can hit like a real *** but that is with a plasma reactor in tow with all the problems associated.. where the hammer head shines is the whole concept of a gun ship, and that is popping in and out of cover, but where the LR shines is the simple felxability of the chassis, the battle cannon should speak volumes. but the LR get the short end of plot Armour (Grimdark is grim dark) ...
but it depends on how you see the IOM, a theocratic dictator ship commanded by morons or a military force made to make do with the worst of situations of ten thousand years of constant warfare.
but it depends on how you see the IOM, a theocratic dictator ship commanded by morons or a military force made to make do with the worst of situations of ten thousand years of constant warfare.
It's a theocratic dictatorship.
It's a theocratic dictatorship that worships a dying atheist with a bureaucracy so bloated and inefficient that entire Space Marine Chapters and alien civilizations are routinely forgotten.
... and open plains are a "straight fight." Kursk or the Golan Heights. Iraq. The biggest tank battles in history can only get that big because terrain is open enough to allow that many tanks to engage. In urban, mountain, or forest fighting, the Tau have better options- stealth teams and Orca-dropped Crisis suits with fusion weapons. Fire Warriors with EMP graenades... though, it's smart to remember that all tanks fare very poorly in those situations. Tanks are best used for combat in open areas- something I expect the Tau rarely forget, unlike their Imperial counterparts.
1.) With the tech priest who forget to beseech the machine-spirit in the proper ritual.
2.) In melee range of any monstrous creature.
3.) In melee range of any enemy dreadnought or walker.
4.) Is noticed by a titan or large walker whose mad they don't have AV-14 and gets jealous.
5.) Noticed by threats like Fire Dragons, Shadow-Spectres, Broadsides, Tank Bustas, Burnaboys etc.
6.) Operated by an incompetent crew. (Though this rectifies itself when the commissar finds out.)
7.) Meeting a bigger tank.
8.) Meeting someone who has a Krak Grenade, Melta Bomb or that guy at the back of the squad with the hidden power-fist to the rear armor.
9.) Is targeted by heavy weapons (las-cannon, plasma-gun, auto-cannon at close range, lifta-droppa, a spit-ball).
10.) Going through a minefield.
11.) Meeting Sly-Marbo or Iron-Hand Straken for the first time.
11.) Pointed in the wrong direction ( at which point the crew's survivability will be in question when the commissar finds out).
13.) Mistaken for a lemon by gork and mork and squeezed accordingly. Gotta love that russ-nade.
14.) Is playing "chicken" with a battle-wagon driver who remembered to bring his "deth-rolla".
15.) On a list a G W rule writer thinks needs to be toned down.
16.) Meets the guy its named after.
Other than that, sure its best thing to ever grace the battlefields of the 41st millennium.
You could apply this to every tank though TBH.
For what it does, it's survivability is great. It's a mobile pie plate delivery system. And AV 14 is the best AV you can get. And they can be modified to whatever you need to solve your problems. I wish I had more then just my Vanquisher and Punisher but oh well.
As far as fluff goes though I remember GW had a story where a group of Leman Russes SNUCK up on a Farseer and his warlocks, and PARKED the Russes on top of the Eldar's Falcon and Wave Serpents. So....yeah...if that behemoth can sneak up on a psychic powerhouse and his cronies in the middle of a jungle...can't be to bad.
... and open plains are a "straight fight." Kursk or the Golan Heights. Iraq. The biggest tank battles in history can only get that big because terrain is open enough to allow that many tanks to engage. In urban, mountain, or forest fighting, the Tau have better options- stealth teams and Orca-dropped Crisis suits with fusion weapons. Fire Warriors with EMP graenades... though, it's smart to remember that all tanks fare very poorly in those situations. Tanks are best used for combat in open areas- something I expect the Tau rarely forget, unlike their Imperial counterparts.
And open plains favours the tank which combines manoeuvrability, durability, range, accuracy and firepower the most effectively.
Which will not be the Leman Russ. The Leman Russ has good armour, so its durability is ok. It has a long range main gun, which is good.
But it is slow and not particularly accurate or powerful, relying on high explosive rounds (in its main variant at least) to deal damage over a wide area rather than a 40k equivalent of a modern anti-tank round designed to punch through armour with little in the way of blast radius.
1.) With the tech priest who forget to beseech the machine-spirit in the proper ritual.
2.) In melee range of any monstrous creature.
3.) In melee range of any enemy dreadnought or walker.
4.) Is noticed by a titan or large walker whose mad they don't have AV-14 and gets jealous.
5.) Noticed by threats like Fire Dragons, Shadow-Spectres, Broadsides, Tank Bustas, Burnaboys etc.
6.) Operated by an incompetent crew. (Though this rectifies itself when the commissar finds out.)
7.) Meeting a bigger tank.
8.) Meeting someone who has a Krak Grenade, Melta Bomb or that guy at the back of the squad with the hidden power-fist to the rear armor.
9.) Is targeted by heavy weapons (las-cannon, plasma-gun, auto-cannon at close range, lifta-droppa, a spit-ball).
10.) Going through a minefield.
11.) Meeting Sly-Marbo or Iron-Hand Straken for the first time.
11.) Pointed in the wrong direction ( at which point the crew's survivability will be in question when the commissar finds out).
13.) Mistaken for a lemon by gork and mork and squeezed accordingly. Gotta love that russ-nade.
14.) Is playing "chicken" with a battle-wagon driver who remembered to bring his "deth-rolla".
15.) On a list a G W rule writer thinks needs to be toned down.
16.) Meets the guy its named after.
Other than that, sure its best thing to ever grace the battlefields of the 41st millennium.
You could apply this to every tank though TBH.
For what it does, it's survivability is great. It's a mobile pie plate delivery system. And AV 14 is the best AV you can get. And they can be modified to whatever you need to solve your problems. I wish I had more then just my Vanquisher and Punisher but oh well.
As far as fluff goes though I remember GW had a story where a group of Leman Russes SNUCK up on a Farseer and his warlocks, and PARKED the Russes on top of the Eldar's Falcon and Wave Serpents. So....yeah...if that behemoth can sneak up on a psychic powerhouse and his cronies in the middle of a jungle...can't be to bad.
In Gunheads, there is an impact in the side armor from a round powerful enough to move the entire bulk of the Leman Russ sideways two meters in the desert sand. Not only did this round fail to penetrate, but the crew seem unperturbed, as if this was a routine occurrence.
Whatever that material is, it has more hardness/pound than diamond.
In Gunheads, there is an impact in the side armor from a round powerful enough to move the entire bulk of the Leman Russ sideways two meters in the desert sand. Not only did this round fail to penetrate, but the crew seem unperturbed, as if this was a routine occurrence.
Whatever that material is, it has more hardness/pound than diamond.
Yes but they were fighting Orks. Orks don't always make reliable ordinance. Its just as likely to ping off your armor as it is to actually do anything.
To be fair, anything that's going to knock a tank two meters sideways should probably do absolutely terrible things to the crew even if it doesn't breach the armor, that's an unreal amount of force being applied there. Also internal equipment would be a great risk of flying off/breaking/etc. I'd just chalk that instance up to bad writing.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, anything that's going to knock a tank two meters sideways should probably do absolutely terrible things to the crew even if it doesn't breach the armor, that's an unreal amount of force being applied there. Also internal equipment would be a great risk of flying off/breaking/etc. I'd just chalk that instance up to bad writing.
Maybe the russ has some kind of internal inertia dampening - negation system or something to that affect that we are currently un-aware of. The exact workings of a russ have never been fully disclosed.
If they did they should be effectively immune to HP damage
We actually have a pretty detailed breakdown of a Leman Russ tank, IA Volume 1 has a cutaway that details just about everything inside (and basically its a Sherman with an overly small turret and turret ring and nowhere near as thick of armor plating as they state earlier in the book )
Vaktathi wrote: and nowhere near as thick of armor plating as they state earlier in the book
Real-world tank armor is often given in equivalent inches/mm of plain steel armor, so that you can compare overall protection levels instead of a meaningless thickness number. The cutaway drawing shows relatively thin armor compared to the numbers, but that's ok as long as you're willing to assume that the LRBT has better armor than the reference material.
Melissia wrote: I'm working off of the assumption that the transmission is intended to work properly, even though GW's employees have no idea how it is supposed to work.
IOW, assume that the LRBT is great and then discard any evidence that shows otherwise?
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, anything that's going to knock a tank two meters sideways should probably do absolutely terrible things to the crew even if it doesn't breach the armor, that's an unreal amount of force being applied there. Also internal equipment would be a great risk of flying off/breaking/etc. I'd just chalk that instance up to bad writing.
It's Gunheads. Report to your local Arbites Precinct-Fortress for summary re-education, Citizen.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, assume that the LRBT is great and then discard any evidence that shows otherwise?
No, assume that the artists don't do their research (I mean FFS one of them is Blanche, what do you expect, quality?), and instead take a look at the tank's actual track record in the lore (the Imperial Guard's MBT; and using it, the Imperial Guard has generally held the line against all comers for ten thousand years) to determine its effectiveness.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, assume that the LRBT is great and then discard any evidence that shows otherwise?
No, assume that the artists don't do their research (I mean FFS one of them is Blanche, what do you expect, quality?), and instead take a look at the tank's actual track record in the lore (the Imperial Guard's MBT; and using it, the Imperial Guard has generally held the line against all comers for ten thousand years) to determine its effectiveness.
Given the Imperium's rather "unique" approach when it comes to technology, the fact that the Russ has been used for 10000 years is probably not going to support that the Russ is actualy a good tank but rather that the imperial guard had the skill and mettle to work around the tanks many limitations and that the Imperium's many enemies aren't particularly efficient either when it comes to designing engines of war.
Peregrine wrote: IOW, assume that the LRBT is great and then discard any evidence that shows otherwise?
No, assume that the artists don't do their research (I mean FFS one of them is Blanche, what do you expect, quality?), and instead take a look at the tank's actual track record in the lore (the Imperial Guard's MBT; and using it, the Imperial Guard has generally held the line against all comers for ten thousand years) to determine its effectiveness.
Given the Imperium's rather "unique" approach when it comes to technology, the fact that the Russ has been used for 10000 years is probably not going to support that the Russ is actualy a good tank but rather that the imperial guard had the skill and mettle to work around the tanks many limitations and that the Imperium's many enemies aren't particularly efficient either when it comes to designing engines of war.
What it shows is that the Imperium's engineers and scientists aren't smart enough to come up with something better.
What it shows is that the Imperium's engineers and scientists aren't smart enough to come up with something better.
Tell it to a battlecannon shell that's gona paste you and your vehicle. Tell it that it's not good enough.
Anywayz, that's the whole purpose of IoM. That's the reflection of our own failures.
Can the IoM produce something better? Sure, it has vast possibilities. Why doesn't it do so? For various reasons. So, LR remains as is untill it's in DIRE need of being changed.
Can the IoM improve the life of an average citizen? Sure, it has access to technology that can make a regular forgeworld's inhabitant's life not a paradise, maybe not even good for the average standards but better than it is now - for sure. Why doesn't it do so? For various reasons. So, the life of a forgeworld's inhabitant is gona remain a horrible struggle for survival.
Can you aid people in need deal with famine and disieses? Sure, you have spare money and time. Even a couple of bux is enough to feed them for half a week. Why don't you do so? For various reasons. So, they'll proceed to starve and die.
What it shows is that the Imperium's engineers and scientists aren't smart enough to come up with something better.
You could say that of most 40K factions. The tau for example can't figure out how to make indirect fire artillery, even though their technology should make it trivial for them even though this would give them a colossal advantage and play to their strengths (not to mention preserving lives.) After all, modern forces have had gun-launched anti tank missiles and guided shells in various forms for decades. And that isn't even factoring in their under-utilization of their AI and drone technology in warfare despite it having the potential to give them a big advantage and overcome numerical disparities.
About the only one I'd give a pass are, as mentioned earlier, the Eldar, and thats because they are actual Renegade-Legion style gravtanks (unlike Imperium or Tau.)
Vaktathi wrote: and nowhere near as thick of armor plating as they state earlier in the book
Real-world tank armor is often given in equivalent inches/mm of plain steel armor, so that you can compare overall protection levels instead of a meaningless thickness number. The cutaway drawing shows relatively thin armor compared to the numbers, but that's ok as long as you're willing to assume that the LRBT has better armor than the reference material.
RHA equivalent isn't the same thing as RHA. For one thing, its often rated against a specific threat (kinetic energy, like APFDS) or chemical energy (which is HEAT), and modern composites and reactive armors are far better at mitigating HEAT weapons than kinetic (see here - I've been getting lots of use out of that page recently.) It gets even more complicated if you throw energy weapons into the mix.
Moreover, a great many tank armours are add on modules or panels (such as the kontakt reactive armours used on Soveit tanks and its derivatives) and they substantially bolster the protection. Actually 'bare' hull thicknesses (usually steel I believe) are actually much, much thinner because of weight limitations, especially on sides and rear without the add ons. Comparing 'bare' hull without extra armour to tanks that have the addons is not quite fair.
In Gunheads, there is an impact in the side armor from a round powerful enough to move the entire bulk of the Leman Russ sideways two meters in the desert sand. Not only did this round fail to penetrate, but the crew seem unperturbed, as if this was a routine occurrence.
Whatever that material is, it has more hardness/pound than diamond.
The same book has a Leman Russ Conqueror using tractor beams as part of its gun recoil system, IIRC.
1.) I think you're confusing honour Guard with Gunheads. Gunheads has a scene similar (but its a LR tank taking a hit and getting shoved 3 meters by an Ork cannon shot) It was 2 metres for a Conqueror in Gunheads.
2.) The 'tractor beam' you mention is presumably the reference to interial dampers, but we don't really know if they were gravitic or some other system (like mechanical) it didn't really specify how they were 'damping' inerita or how they worked, and its not really possible to extrapolate from just a name.
3.) Penetrating armour with tank rounds is way more complicated than just having a large KE/momentum number, especially when it comes to stuff like APFSDS and HEAT rounds, they work far differently in mechanism than something akin to WW2 era guns (including naval guns.) So much so that modern tank rounds actually penetrate comparable thicknesses of armour as WW2 era battleships, despite the fact the former have a fraction of the KE and momentum of the latter.
What it shows is that the Imperium's engineers and scientists aren't smart enough to come up with something better.
You could say that of most 40K factions. The tau for example can't figure out how to make indirect fire artillery, even though their technology should make it trivial for them even though this would give them a colossal advantage and play to their strengths (not to mention preserving lives.) After all, modern forces have had gun-launched anti tank missiles and guided shells in various forms for decades. And that isn't even factoring in their under-utilization of their AI and drone technology in warfare despite it having the potential to give them a big advantage and overcome numerical disparities.
... seeker missiles can be fired at targets the attacker can't see when forward observers use markerlights. What the Tau don't like is equipment that is a risk to their own forces... and artillery is that, when troops are close to the enemy. Indirect fire in 40k means you take what is on the scatter die without modification, even if it's smack dab in the middle of your own troops.
What the Tau don't like is equipment that is a risk to their own forces...
Yet they certainly seem to have a lot of equipment that is just that. A risk to the wielder. I'm noticing a lot of their weapons profiles that have a "Gets Hot" rule attached to them when they over-charge. Then there is the Riptide, whose early prototypes endangered the planet they were standing on and even now, in its more re-fined form, has a 1/3 chance of endangering at-least the pilot should they nova-charge unsuccessfully.
EmpNortonII wrote: ... seeker missiles can be fired at targets the attacker can't see when forward observers use markerlights.
So can real life forces. amazingly this hasn't lead to the outcome it does with the Tau.
What the Tau don't like is equipment that is a risk to their own forces..
There is that fluff blurb from Chapter approved 2004 where the tau try to do some MIU on a rail rifle and it burns out the dude's brain. 6th edition's codex introduced plenty of 'risky' technologies as well (like the ion rifle, or the fission-powered battlesuits.)... I'm not exactly convinced by your claim.
... and artillery is that, when troops are close to the enemy. Indirect fire in 40k means you take what is on the scatter die without modification, even if it's smack dab in the middle of your own troops.
Except that real life modern forces aren't restricted to 40K tabletop silliness, and we have had guided rounds for a long time that can be fired out of artillery. Like Excalibur. Tanks have their analogues in the proposed XM-1111 and the LAHAT.
There was even experiments with gun-launched anti tank missiles as far back as the 50's by both the US and the Russians. Are you telling me the Tau can't do what modern forces can, despite their awesomely greater tech base? This isn't really countering my 'compared to RL 40K factions are pretty silly militarily' contention. Its even worse in some respects because you can't even use the excusse the Imperium does to handwave it (the tau supposedly being so progressive and dynamic and technophillic and above superstition and dogma.)
On the other hand, the LR is just slow.
Yes, I'm well aware you've made this point before and you strongly believe this. It doesn't really invalidate my point though about how factions in a tabletop game can be made to look like utter idiots compared to the way modern warfare operates.
What the Tau don't like is equipment that is a risk to their own forces...
Yet they certainly seem to have a lot of equipment that is just that. A risk to the wielder. I'm noticing a lot of their weapons profiles that have a "Gets Hot" rule attached to them when they over-charge. Then there is the Riptide, whose early prototypes endangered the planet they were standing on and even now, in its more re-fined form, has a 1/3 chance of endangering at-least the pilot should they nova-charge unsuccessfully.
Like a lot of recent codices, the 6th edition Tau codex took a bit of a hatchet to the fluff.
Important to point out, however, is that all of the gets hot rules come from the deliberate overcharging of the weapon, ie operating it beyond its standard setting. So it's less a case of the weapon being a risk to the wielder in the sense of the IoM Plasmagun and more that it can, when pushed beyond its safety limits to gain more power, be a risk to the user.
It still has safety in its baseline. It's just that the user can choose to exceed that, at risk to themselves.
Ashiraya wrote: I am sure that if you take an Imperial plasma gun and fire single shots with a fair pause between each, it won't overheat either.
And you can fire an ion cannon or ion rifle as fast as it is capable of with no risk of overheating. It's only once you increase the charge of each individual shot to the point that the projectile explodes that it becomes dangerous to the user.
Its a risk that they can take. and not to forget that just because gets hot causes a wound, doesn't necessarily mean that the person dies.
Its just as probable that the gun because inoperable in combat and so the warrior takes it off the field. or is near by fixing it but will not be fixed for the next 30min of 6 rounds.
also can we move away from the tau Jircle Cerking? it always happens when a thread about tech comes up.
What about an Eldar circlejerk? I mean, clearly their tanks are superior because they can fly and they can turn invisible and they have the best shields and their pilots have better reflexes and they are totally awesomer than your tanks.
TheCustomLime wrote: What about an Eldar circlejerk? I mean, clearly their tanks are superior because they can fly and they can turn invisible and they have the best shields and their pilots have better reflexes and they are totally awesomer than your tanks.
Don't forget to include that their armor is lower than that of other race's tanks as well.
Uhhh... Wyzilla dipped into that territory for a bit but I wouldn't call him the Eldar guy. But this isn't relevant to the topic in the slightest so... back on topic.
From what I can tell the Leman Russ battle tank is a very durable vehicle with a solid gun, an average sensor suite and a crappy engine. In the right hands it can destroy Titans and Stompas but it can suffer from the quality from it's crew or more accurately the lack thereof. It's vulnerable to dedicated AT platforms but... that's sort of just how the cookie crumbles. So, basically, it can be as survivable as the plot demands. Gets blown up by the thousands? Crappy crew walking into an ambush. Taking out monsters? Tank aces at the command. I hope that answers whatever question the OP had.
The Hellfire missle AGM-114..is basically the seeker missle..and mounted on gunships..sorta like the tau..
and has been tested on some ground based platforms but not deployed as such.
We use to have copperhead laser guided munitions for artillery..but now use GPS guided munitions..I was a 13F and that was my bag.
I'm pretty sure that they have guided ground based missiles, but I'm also pretty sure that they are not as small. Anyway, the main thing about seekers that's actually most impressive Is their ability to navigate terrain.
Connor MacLeod wrote: You could say that of most 40K factions. The tau for example can't figure out how to make indirect fire artillery, even though their technology should make it trivial for them even though this would give them a colossal advantage and play to their strengths (not to mention preserving lives.) After all, modern forces have had gun-launched anti tank missiles and guided shells in various forms for decades. And that isn't even factoring in their under-utilization of their AI and drone technology in warfare despite it having the potential to give them a big advantage and overcome numerical disparities.
To be fair, some of this has to do with game rules, not fluff. Tau only lack indirect fire artillery because the game mechanics ignore the blast effect of various Tau weapons. Seeker missile game stats pretend they just obliterate a single guardsman and are no threat to the guardsman next to him, railgun submunition shots are treated as laser weapons instead of a projectile that could easily be fired in a high arc, etc. Similarly, we do see Tau using drones in the background (IA3, for example), and we can pretty easily assume that their lack of presence in the fluff has more to do with the story focusing on the interesting events than with any lack of use in the "real" Tau army. Drone turrets/Tigersharks dropping gun drone blobs/etc just aren't very interesting without some characters around, so that all happens off-camera.
The US Army has a laser-guided ground-launched missile? Really? Can you provide the name of the weapon system? I'm pretty sure you're making gak up.
I like how I said 'real life forces' and you somehow interpreted this to narrowly mean 'US only'. There are other countries with other competent, well equipped armies, out there. And in caes you forgot, I already mentioned LAHAT. Which they can launch out of gun tubes as well as in other ways. And there seems to be the Nimrod missile. The russians seem to have a similar gun launched ATGM in the Refleks. The US had the Copperhead gun launched projectile as well. Hellfire seems to be able to be launched from the ground as well as the air too. Of course looking at all the missile options it does seem the modern forces use a wider variety of guidance methods than the Tau do, so that could also help explain the lack of expliclty one and only one kind of guidance (and using only missiles as opposed to other forms of stuff.)
But as you say, I could be just hallucinating all those examples just to make stuff up and win arbitrary internet points
Peregrine wrote: To be fair, some of this has to do with game rules, not fluff. Tau only lack indirect fire artillery because the game mechanics ignore the blast effect of various Tau weapons. Seeker missile game stats pretend they just obliterate a single guardsman and are no threat to the guardsman next to him, railgun submunition shots are treated as laser weapons instead of a projectile that could easily be fired in a high arc, etc. Similarly, we do see Tau using drones in the background (IA3, for example), and we can pretty easily assume that their lack of presence in the fluff has more to do with the story focusing on the interesting events than with any lack of use in the "real" Tau army. Drone turrets/Tigersharks dropping gun drone blobs/etc just aren't very interesting without some characters around, so that all happens off-camera.
Sure, and theres lots of ways to interpret or analyze this stuff that doesn't neccesarily invoke '40K people are idiots.' Which is actually kind of the point, since what you can rationalize with one faction you can just as easily rationalize in the others... its just a matter of whether a person is willing to or not. The whole 'making things interesting for reasons other than super-realism' applies to the Russ as well for example, since there's a strong thematic/creative reason for why things are so utterly variable in the Imperial Guard (so the player can field anything from feral tribesmen and horse cavalry to cyborg supersoldiers and futuretanks.) Just as by the same token alot of the 'bad' things attributed to the Tau to demonize them may get blown out of proportion or only be 'bad' from a certain point of view.
TheCustomLime wrote: From what I can tell the Leman Russ battle tank is a very durable vehicle with a solid gun, an average sensor suite and a crappy engine. In the right hands it can destroy Titans and Stompas but it can suffer from the quality from it's crew or more accurately the lack thereof. It's vulnerable to dedicated AT platforms but... that's sort of just how the cookie crumbles. So, basically, it can be as survivable as the plot demands. Gets blown up by the thousands? Crappy crew walking into an ambush. Taking out monsters? Tank aces at the command. I hope that answers whatever question the OP had.
If the Russ suffers from one definite thing, its lack of standardization. Much like the Rest of the Guard. Lack of a uniform, standardized tech base, difficulties in centrally administering to worlds, and hundreds of thousands of different cultures, industrial levels, etc. leads to alot of variation (and modelling opportunties), but also the potential for a wide divergence in capability based on availability of materials and resources, technology level, and even military doctrines. Whereas with most other factions (except maybe the Orks, who are even less standardized than the Imperium) they do have standards - you aren't going to find hammerheads or Falcon grav tanks with a steam engine in them.. but you could do so for the Russ. I wouldn't be surprised if you had Leman Russes built to WW1/early 20th century tech base levels in some regiments. Conversely, you could find some very advanced Russes, like the Solar Auxilia modesl which Conquest mentions are built to Astartes levels (which leads to interesting conclusions when you couple Leman Russ armour thicknesses with the multilayered composites used by a Predator... 450-600 mm of 'conventional steel' equivalnet comes to mind, and that's on top of being faster. And this still doesn't factor in stuff like extra armour. Funny how utterly mutable numbers are depending on how you interpret stuff.)
TheCustomLime wrote: From what I can tell the Leman Russ battle tank is a very durable vehicle with a solid gun, an average sensor suite and a crappy engine. In the right hands it can destroy Titans and Stompas but it can suffer from the quality from it's crew or more accurately the lack thereof. It's vulnerable to dedicated AT platforms but... that's sort of just how the cookie crumbles. So, basically, it can be as survivable as the plot demands. Gets blown up by the thousands? Crappy crew walking into an ambush. Taking out monsters? Tank aces at the command. I hope that answers whatever question the OP had.
If the Russ suffers from one definite thing, its lack of standardization. Much like the Rest of the Guard. Lack of a uniform, standardized tech base, difficulties in centrally administering to worlds, and hundreds of thousands of different cultures, industrial levels, etc. leads to alot of variation (and modelling opportunties), but also the potential for a wide divergence in capability based on availability of materials and resources, technology level, and even military doctrines. Whereas with most other factions (except maybe the Orks, who are even less standardized than the Imperium) they do have standards - you aren't going to find hammerheads or Falcon grav tanks with a steam engine in them.. but you could do so for the Russ. I wouldn't be surprised if you had Leman Russes built to WW1/early 20th century tech base levels in some regiments. Conversely, you could find some very advanced Russes, like the Solar Auxilia modesl which Conquest mentions are built to Astartes levels (which leads to interesting conclusions when you couple Leman Russ armour thicknesses with the multilayered composites used by a Predator... 450-600 mm of 'conventional steel' equivalnet comes to mind, and that's on top of being faster. And this still doesn't factor in stuff like extra armour. Funny how utterly mutable numbers are depending on how you interpret stuff.)
Steam powered stuff can be pretty effective so it may not be a draw back if a Russ is steam powered assuming it still functioned the same.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
Right but that wouldn't have worked so well if they were sending 6 Shermans against an Abrams which could outrange, outgun and outmanoeuvre them so that they were all burning wrecks before ever actually getting in range.
You could have just inserted a tiger tank to keep things realistic and you'd have the same results. Except the russ and hammerhead are both heavy tanks with armor penetrating rounds on certain load outs. The sherman was a medium tank not designed to take down heavy armor so that's why shermans got wrecked by tigers. Russ vs Hammerhead realistically shot be determined by who shoots first and who shoots more accurately because both are capable of penetrating their armor.
Indeed. Both in the fluff and in the game, Leman Russ tanks are at least on par with Hammerheads.
Of course, it depends whose fluff you're reading - main character Guard: Leman Russ tank regiments do very well. Main character Tau: Leman Russ tank regiments do very poorly. I suspect it's somewhere in between, which is why I said "at least on par."
In the game, IMO the Russ tank company is way better than the (unbound, admittedly) Hammerhead company, which speaks to the phenomenal endurance and flexibility of the Russ on the table.
I think it has a lot to do with the varying crew quality. Even the best tanks can be chumped by inferior ones if their crew isn't up to snuff. Since this is the Imperial Guard we're talking about the crew probably varies from being born tankers to being factory workers they just threw in the things because they knew how the tanks worked.
the 3 things AFV..MBTs..tanks..whatever you want to call them , are measured on.
Speed...protection..firepower
And as to the continued comparison of the Leman Russ and Hammerhead..this is the breakdown I would envision...more from a pseudo-fluff tabletop comparison.
Equal crews skill for sake of comparison as well.
standard Russ..standard Hammerhead.
Hammer head and Leman russ firepower..roughly equal if in range if not in raw tank killing power..each has its advantages..with a slight advantage to the hammerhead in anti-vehicle potency. (it is a freaking railgun after all)
Protection..Leman russ has thicker armor...and the Hammer head without upgrades is less well protected..so advantage Leman Russ
Speed/ maneuverability...Hammerhead hands down..roads...bridges..rivers...etc are of no concern for it..strategic and tactical mobility is unimpaired..compared to a Leman Russ..that is subjected to these hazards and obstacles.
So in a very basic comparison they are equal...and I have used both on the tabletop.
But I would much rather be in a Hammerhead
And if you can move in 3 dimensions and overcome most any terrain with ease you can usually maintain the combat tempo..so hit and fade..popups..etc, would always favor the Hammerhead..and put the Leman russ on the defensive..something that no one enjoys..again this is thinking beyond the 6' X 4' world they usually have to fight on.
Although its debatable whether game mechanics are or aren't admissible. Alot of fluff that has appeared over the years was shaped by specific games, after all.
I'm also not sure you can do just a simple straight comparison between a Hammerhead or a Russ. Hammerheads are dedicated, specialist designs. They kill stuff, and they kill it from long range with alot of firepower and mobility. Its alot like the FCS concepts the Army keeps envisioning as the next 'big thing' really (although to my knowledge we have no hard data on its armour or stuff like that.) ITs got a Railgun and that gives it lots of advantages (no propellant means their recoil is lower for an equivalent projectile mass and velocity, and for a equal level of recoil likely means the gun throws a heavier and/or faster round.) No propellant means nothing potentially volatile to blow up in the tank. It also has a speed advantage over most Russ stats (70-100 kph depending on source, the latter comes from a very early IA supplement around 3rd edition I believe.. a time when Earthshakers were 125mm and had a 410 m/s muzzle velocity lol) Give it lots of terrain to move in and unconstrained operations (EG nothing critical to defend) and it would be playing to its strengths.
The Russ on the other hand is multi-everything. Meant to be built and repaired/maintained by all kinds of materials and industrial/technology levels, running on a wide variety of fuels, operated by different kinds of crews (varying quality, fighting doctrines, cultures, etc.) and having all manner of variations in how its kitted out (such as weapons, or engines. Some Russes have turbines and can fire on the move, for example.) It is meant to fill a variety of roles and fight a wide variety of roles - thsi means it isn't as good as a specialist design, but it can do whatever is needed adequately and it can be adapted in any number of ways, at need (which, along with the ease of construction and maintenance, is important for the way the Guard works.)
I'm not sure it would neccesarily have a more powerful gun. whilst to my knowledge we don't know what kind of round it fires (is it fin stabilized, spin stabilized, what is ti made of, etc.) it does fire it very fast (Mach 6-10 depending on source) and it would be hard to get a Russ to consistently match that. Vanquishers (and maybe Annihilators) would be a closer match in the offensive department. And maybe the Destroyer Tank Hunter.
Edit: Also, ammunition is an issue. IF the Russ is only packing HE rounds, or if its using full caliber AP (like AP capped or APCBC) its not going to be as effective if it was packing, say, APCR, APDS or ideally APFSDS or some sort of HEAT round (which is available depending on source.... for example the Russ is listed as a 120mm smoothbore, so that means it has to use fin stabilized ammo unless its firing the tank gun equivalent of a shotgun slug. Wheraes by other sources like Imperial Armour, it seems to be rifled given the driving band.)
Anyhow, projectile design and competition has a major influence on performance along with speed (which is a big reason why modern tanks are smoothbore discarding sabot.. it optimzies for fin stabilized high density ammo at the highest possible speeds.)
The Imperial Answer wrote: [
Steam powered stuff can be pretty effective so it may not be a draw back if a Russ is steam powered assuming it still functioned the same.
Well true. Even a nuclear powered tank might still run on steam (I'm pretty sure its important for moving turbines in RL nuclear reactors, anyhow.) But what I was trying to get at was a really low tech sort of tank like of the late 19th/early 20th century earth. Constructed of iron plate and a really crude engine by such standards. It could look more or less like a Russ (thats th enature of STC) but have different performance and capabilities because the construction methods and/or materials used (and stuff used to fuel/arm it) are of varying quality.
The best comparison to a Hammerhead would be a Vanquisher tank with Beast-Hunter shells.
Mobility: The Hammerhead still wins, though it is worth noting that the sheer mechanical reliability and ruggedness of the Leman Russ may make it more mobile on a huge (I.E. Imperial) scale by avoiding breakdowns.
Firepower: Hands down in favor of the Russ. The Vanquisher's sub-calibre AT round is much more effective, both in game and instances of the fluff where it is mentioned, than the Hammerhead's railgun round. The railgun's Submunition round, while having a larger kill radius, lacks the potency of the chemical-energy Beast Hunter shell at both piercing infantry armor and killing large creatures. The Leman Russ's firepower is further increased with the addition of co-axially mounted heavy stubbers, hull-mounted heavy weapons (including lascannons), and sponson-mounted heavy weapons (including multi-meltas). For sheer tankbusting, the Leman Russ Vanquisher is far superior to the Hammerhead, and it also has increased firepower against heavy and very heavy infantry and drastically increased potency against large creatures.
Protection: Also hands down in favor of the Russ. Although Jinking is possible in a Hammerhead, it so boggles the internal systems that I imagine it is not SOP (even if it is on the TT). The Leman Russ's armor is easily patched when damaged, easily constructed, more protective, and can be laced with camoleoline materials (to make it more resistant to detection) without meaningfully affecting the protective value of the tank's armor. The addition of other defensive armaments (while not present in the TT game) helps it to deter enemy infantry from approaching the tank.
Too bad this is based entirely on game mechanics instead of fluff.
I can provide fluff evidence as well.
First of all, reliability has no bearing in-game. It is simply repeatedly stated to be reliable in the fluff.
Secondly, the Vanquisher is said to be able to penetrate the toughest ground armor that the Imperium could muster - Titan armor. It is said in IA1v2 that a company of Vanquishers can destroy traitor war-engines (obviously by penetrating its armor). If 10 Hammerheads could easily deal with Imperial titans, the Tau would probably be justified in considering them scrap metal, and wouldn't be afraid enough to build the AX-10. As for the Beast Hunter shells, the fluff for them is that they contain "volatile chemicals and mutagenic acids" which are more effective than shrapnel shells against certain targets (though they do have a lower kill radius in the explosion).
Lastly, the armor of the tank is tough enough to withstand the KE of a round moving it two meters sideways. I saw someone doing a calculation of how tough the armor would be (based on various assumptions admittedly) based on the weight of the tank and other information, and came out with some absurd number. There's other examples of the Leman Russ being quite well armored as well, I just won't be arsed to look them up.
Most pertinently, however, I would like to believe that at least in general statements, the rules writers try to emulate the fluff. If the Hammerhead had more armor than the Russ, it would've had more armor numbers. If the Russ had a worse cannon, it would have a worse cannon. If the Russ didn't have sponsons, it wouldn't have the option to take sponsons, etc.
I'm not even just outright comparing the numbers - those statements are general, and I think the people that developed the game have some effect on the fluff and visa-versa.
Happy New Year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: ^ That. Based entirely on game mechanics, except for where the fluff would favour the Leman Russ.
Forgot to mention where the Hammehead is capable of sub-orbital descent unaided, for example. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if a Russ tried that.
I gave mobility to the HH - that counts as mobility, yes?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, the armor of the tank is tough enough to withstand the KE of a round moving it two meters sideways. I saw someone doing a calculation of how tough the armor would be (based on various assumptions admittedly) based on the weight of the tank and other information, and came out with some absurd number. There's other examples of the Leman Russ being quite well armored as well, I just won't be arsed to look them up.
Isn't that like the Marine running at supersonic speeds in Night Lords?
Or Plasma Pistols firing at temperatures that would wipe out continents?
Weeelll if the shot was brief enough you could fire a really high temperature bolt without damaging the environment too much. You wouldn't want to be standing too close to the bolt's path, though.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, the armor of the tank is tough enough to withstand the KE of a round moving it two meters sideways. I saw someone doing a calculation of how tough the armor would be (based on various assumptions admittedly) based on the weight of the tank and other information, and came out with some absurd number. There's other examples of the Leman Russ being quite well armored as well, I just won't be arsed to look them up.
Isn't that like the Marine running at supersonic speeds in Night Lords?
Or Plasma Pistols firing at temperatures that would wipe out continents?
GW is not good with numbers.
Perhaps not. But it means what it says, and it says "The armor of this tank is stupid good." Whether or not you disagree with the writer on whether or not it should be that good, it simply is stated as fact.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Lastly, the armor of the tank is tough enough to withstand the KE of a round moving it two meters sideways. I saw someone doing a calculation of how tough the armor would be (based on various assumptions admittedly) based on the weight of the tank and other information, and came out with some absurd number. There's other examples of the Leman Russ being quite well armored as well, I just won't be arsed to look them up.
Isn't that like the Marine running at supersonic speeds in Night Lords?
Or Plasma Pistols firing at temperatures that would wipe out continents?
GW is not good with numbers.
Even FW, which generally does a better job, has a land raider at a density of far less than water.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If 10 Hammerheads could easily deal with Imperial titans, the Tau would probably be justified in considering them scrap metal, and wouldn't be afraid enough to build the AX-10.
This is a bad argument because the railgun Tigershark wasn't built because the Tau had no other option. They already had the Manta as a titan killer, it was just too expensive and wasted too much space on transport capacity to be ideal in that role. The Tigershark gives the Tau an efficient titan killer with far better mobility than a Hammerhead squadron (so it can quickly react to titan attacks instead of having to mass Hammerheads everywhere a titan could appear) and the ability to blow away a titan in a single strafing run instead of having to fight it in an evenly-matched battle.
As for the Beast Hunter shells, the fluff for them is that they contain "volatile chemicals and mutagenic acids" which are more effective than shrapnel shells against certain targets (though they do have a lower kill radius in the explosion).
Which is a single line of vague fluff for a weapon that doesn't appear anywhere else. That's hardly better than the game mechanics explanation of "FW realized that it's stupid how MCs are more durable than tanks" if you want an objective analysis of how effective they are.
Lastly, the armor of the tank is tough enough to withstand the KE of a round moving it two meters sideways. I saw someone doing a calculation of how tough the armor would be (based on various assumptions admittedly) based on the weight of the tank and other information, and came out with some absurd number. There's other examples of the Leman Russ being quite well armored as well, I just won't be arsed to look them up.
On the other hand there's also fluff of Hammerhead railgun shots going in one side of a LRBT, trashing the interior and liquefying the crew, and spraying the bloody mess out the exit hole in the other side of the tank. So either LRBT armor isn't all that impressive, or Hammerhead railgun shots are way more powerful than you seem to think.
Most pertinently, however, I would like to believe that at least in general statements, the rules writers try to emulate the fluff. If the Hammerhead had more armor than the Russ, it would've had more armor numbers. If the Russ had a worse cannon, it would have a worse cannon. If the Russ didn't have sponsons, it wouldn't have the option to take sponsons, etc.
No, because you're overlooking the fact that things change over multiple editions. For example, the Predator's autocannon was supposed to be a pretty good anti-tank weapon when it was first published (and IIRC it was), but now in 7th edition it's a joke. Is it really a pathetic gun fluff-wise, or were GW's rule authors just too lazy and/or incompetent to update the old 2nd edition rules to match the 7th edition game?
Now, I'll admit that the LRBT probably has better armor, but the Hammerhead has good armor combined with far superior evasion ability and powerful defensive electronic warfare so in terms of which tank is harder to kill the LRBT's advantage is much less clear. And the LRBT's gun is completely outclassed by the Hammerhead. In IA3 it's explicitly stated that the LRBT has no hope of beating a Hammerhead in an open-field tank duel, the Hammehead can just snipe it from beyond the range of effective return fire.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Even FW, which generally does a better job, has a land raider at a density of far less than water.
I don't really see the problem with that, because a Land Raider isn't a solid block of metal. A real-world battleship has less density than water (as demonstrated by the fact that it floats), but I don't think anyone would argue that it is poorly armored.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Perhaps not. But it means what it says, and it says "The armor of this tank is stupid good." Whether or not you disagree with the writer on whether or not it should be that good, it simply is stated as fact.
You have to throw it out because it's hard to imagine the tank being shoved to the side like that without the shock of the impact killing the crew. Remember, even if the armor isn't penetrated the stuff inside the armor can still be destroyed. So the more likely case is that this is yet another "GW sucks at numbers" example that doesn't match the rest of the fluff and should be discarded.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If 10 Hammerheads could easily deal with Imperial titans, the Tau would probably be justified in considering them scrap metal, and wouldn't be afraid enough to build the AX-10.
This is a bad argument because the railgun Tigershark wasn't built because the Tau had no other option. They already had the Manta as a titan killer, it was just too expensive and wasted too much space on transport capacity to be ideal in that role. The Tigershark gives the Tau an efficient titan killer with far better mobility than a Hammerhead squadron (so it can quickly react to titan attacks instead of having to mass Hammerheads everywhere a titan could appear) and the ability to blow away a titan in a single strafing run instead of having to fight it in an evenly-matched battle.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
I took a tank command squad of 2, corner deployment. I had them moved up just a little for good line of sight shooting.
Guy drop podded a "combat squad" veteran squad exactly right behind them and popped them both with multimeltas, turn 1... worst 400 pt investment ever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The best comparison to a Hammerhead would be a Vanquisher tank with Beast-Hunter shells.
Mobility: The Hammerhead still wins, though it is worth noting that the sheer mechanical reliability and ruggedness of the Leman Russ may make it more mobile on a huge (I.E. Imperial) scale by avoiding breakdowns.
Firepower: Hands down in favor of the Russ. The Vanquisher's sub-calibre AT round is much more effective, both in game and instances of the fluff where it is mentioned, than the Hammerhead's railgun round. The railgun's Submunition round, while having a larger kill radius, lacks the potency of the chemical-energy Beast Hunter shell at both piercing infantry armor and killing large creatures. The Leman Russ's firepower is further increased with the addition of co-axially mounted heavy stubbers, hull-mounted heavy weapons (including lascannons), and sponson-mounted heavy weapons (including multi-meltas). For sheer tankbusting, the Leman Russ Vanquisher is far superior to the Hammerhead, and it also has increased firepower against heavy and very heavy infantry and drastically increased potency against large creatures.
Protection: Also hands down in favor of the Russ. Although Jinking is possible in a Hammerhead, it so boggles the internal systems that I imagine it is not SOP (even if it is on the TT). The Leman Russ's armor is easily patched when damaged, easily constructed, more protective, and can be laced with camoleoline materials (to make it more resistant to detection) without meaningfully affecting the protective value of the tank's armor. The addition of other defensive armaments (while not present in the TT game) helps it to deter enemy infantry from approaching the tank.
There is, actually, one other comparison you can make. Ease of manufacture.
The Hammerhead is the standard tank of the Tau Empire. Knowledge of how to build it is widespread. It's going to continue to be used until something better is built.
The Vanquisher is built on two worlds. (One of which makes them exclusively for Cadia, meaning the Tau will never ever face them in battle- and the third was recently eaten by Tyranids). The shells it uses aren't used by (many?) other Imperial units, so ammunition is probably also coming from a limited source. One Waagh! or Hive fleet can literally take the Vanquisher out of production for the forseeable future. One ship being swallowed by the Warp could leave a regiment without ammunition in the field. Certain spare parts- those specific to the tank- might be hard to come by. From what I understand, the three versions used different caliber shells- meaning that those made on Gryphonne IV will start running out if the ammunition was also manufactured there.
The Hammerhead has no such problems. Of course, compared to the standard Leman Russ, the Guard probably fares better (I've never read anything talking about Hammerhead manufacture or maintenance- it could be that the HH is just as reliable as the LRBT). What we *do* know is that it's hard for a Commander to come by a Vanquisher regiment. Even given its small size, in all likeliness the Tau Empire has more Hammerheads than the Imperium has Vanquishers.
Unit1126PLL wrote: If 10 Hammerheads could easily deal with Imperial titans, the Tau would probably be justified in considering them scrap metal, and wouldn't be afraid enough to build the AX-10.
This is a bad argument because the railgun Tigershark wasn't built because the Tau had no other option. They already had the Manta as a titan killer, it was just too expensive and wasted too much space on transport capacity to be ideal in that role. The Tigershark gives the Tau an efficient titan killer with far better mobility than a Hammerhead squadron (so it can quickly react to titan attacks instead of having to mass Hammerheads everywhere a titan could appear) and the ability to blow away a titan in a single strafing run instead of having to fight it in an evenly-matched battle.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldn't necessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
On the Hammerheads vs Titans or Manta vs Titans... there's one important thing to remember. Things that are considered sound strategy for the imperial are considered vile for the Tau. One of these is the concept of throwing troops and tanks mindlessly at a problem until it goes away. The Tau philosophy views every Manta, every Hammerhead, every Fire Warrior, as having value. Heavy losses are always unacceptable to the Tau. In the Imperium, manpower is a low-value expendable resource, easily acquired and usually thrown into the meat grinder with as little thought. Even if a Manta can take a Titan with little chance of losing and if ten Hammerheads can take a titan, there will be casualties or more damage than is viewed as acceptable.
To the Tau, there is ALWAYS value in finding a better way to do a job. To the Imperium, innovation is a temptation that leads to ruin. That's why in six thousand years, they couldn't figure out how to solder some anti-aircraft missiles and a radar on a rhino.
The Imperium actually does innovate. It's just that every innovation has to be carefully tested to ensure that it works properly and the AdMech likes to be very thorough when it comes to their testing. Otherwise, you may end up with disastrous results.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
... the other side to the rules is that, while it is vulnerable to a lot of fire, it's still a flier, and thus immune in game to blasts, large blasts, and torrents- you know, most Imperial titan weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: The Imperium actually does innovate. It's just that every innovation has to be carefully tested to ensure that it works properly and the AdMech likes to be very thorough when it comes to their testing. Otherwise, you may end up with disastrous results.
In six thousand years, they couldn't figure out how to solder some anti-aircraft missiles and a radar onto a Rhino.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
... the other side to the rules is that, while it is vulnerable to a lot of fire, it's still a flier, and thus immune in game to blasts, large blasts, and torrents- you know, most Imperial titan weapons.
Rules wise this still leaves the Vulcan Mega Bolter.
This may not seem like much, but some titans can carry many of these. Particuarly the Warlord, which can have up to two of these and the Emperator which can have up to six.
Lore-wise, shooting down a flyer with a titan is not hard. They did it in one of the Eisenhorn novels. In the Dark Eldar codex it even mentions a Stompa swatting Razor-Wing fighters from the sky.
In any case a titan is usually never caught alone so there is a high probability that the larger ones ,due to their cost and value, will be near something that can handle any flyer related issues that may arise. Titans are usually meant to be supported and aren't risked without precaution.
yes the vulcan mega bolter...if a player kitted out one of their titans with that you just kill it first..to short of range in mega battles...but usually players dont take that in preferance for turbo-laser..blast guns blah blah..templates blah
again in fluff anything is possible...a ork on a bike took out a warlord (or somesuch) titan by diving his bike into it....fluff is funny that way.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Yeah I have pointed out that rule a few times..but it always defaults to fluff vs. rules vs. realisim.
thats why the tigershark is so scary...Titans hate fliers..lol
we discovered this in a mega battle..as my pait of A-X Tigersharks bagged 3 warhounds... the anti flyer rule boned them.
A-yup! Kill any AA the first round they enter, and then go to town. Watch your opponent cry when you hit his Vendettas with D-strength weapons.
Id like to see how that "kill any AA" works on the Praetor Armored Launcher. Its a super-heavy AA missile launcher that fires 2 Str 8, Ap 3 missiles with Twin-Linked, Sky Fire and Interceptor rules. In addition where the Tigershark seems to be 660 points, the Praetor Armored Launcher is only 250 points which makes it about the cost of a land raider (which is cheap by the standards of games large enough to field multiple titans and or super-heavy units).
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Yeah I have pointed out that rule a few times..but it always defaults to fluff vs. rules vs. realisim.
thats why the tigershark is so scary...Titans hate fliers..lol
we discovered this in a mega battle..as my pait of A-X Tigersharks bagged 3 warhounds... the anti flyer rule boned them.
A-yup! Kill any AA the first round they enter, and then go to town. Watch your opponent cry when you hit his Vendettas with D-strength weapons.
Id like to see how that "kill any AA" works on the Praetor Armored Launcher. Its a super-heavy AA missile launcher that fires 2 Str 8, Ap 3 missles with Twin-Linked, Sky Fire and Interceptor rules. In addition where the Tigershark seems to be 660 points, the Praetor Armored Launcher is only 250 points which makes it about the cost of a land raider.
Sigh..yes we can play that game...suicide crisis suits with melta weapons..in single model groups..deep striking blowing up Praetor..or drawing fire...blah blah..the never ending one upmanship from a endless toybox..in a vacuum...that way leads to madness..lol
The Russ seems like a simple, strong, tank that gets the job done, and done well.
When compared to the Hammerhead, Fire Prism, and whatever it is Necrons use can we really assume that it's even meant to be on par?
Hammerheads for the large part are off on the Eastern fringe, Eldar like to pick and choose their battles as they see fit. I'm sure Fire Prisms aren't that common of an enemy for the Russ crews. Same with Necrons, they pop up every once in awhile and thats that.
The Russ was designed for general combat, and it does it's job well. To compare its experiences against rarer tanks in the fluff would just be unfair.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Yeah I have pointed out that rule a few times..but it always defaults to fluff vs. rules vs. realisim.
thats why the tigershark is so scary...Titans hate fliers..lol
we discovered this in a mega battle..as my pait of A-X Tigersharks bagged 3 warhounds... the anti flyer rule boned them.
A-yup! Kill any AA the first round they enter, and then go to town. Watch your opponent cry when you hit his Vendettas with D-strength weapons.
Id like to see how that "kill any AA" works on the Praetor Armored Launcher. Its a super-heavy AA missile launcher that fires 2 Str 8, Ap 3 missles with Twin-Linked, Sky Fire and Interceptor rules. In addition where the Tigershark seems to be 660 points, the Praetor Armored Launcher is only 250 points which makes it about the cost of a land raider.
Sigh..yes we can play that game...suicide crisis suits with melta weapons..in single model groups..deep striking blowing up Praetor..or drawing fire...blah blah..the never ending one upmanship from a endless toybox..in a vacuum...that way leads to madness..lol
The point is to emphasize that you may not be able to destroy the enemy AA as it may survive your attacks and or be out of reach, at which point it is free to retaliate and or disrupt your flyer.
NauticalKendall wrote: The Russ seems like a simple, strong, tank that gets the job done, and done well.
When compared to the Hammerhead, Fire Prism, and whatever it is Necrons use can we really assume that it's even meant to be on par?
Hammerheads for the large part are off on the Eastern fringe, Eldar like to pick and choose their battles as they see fit. I'm sure Fire Prisms aren't that common of an enemy for the Russ crews. Same with Necrons, they pop up every once in awhile and thats that.
The Russ was designed for general combat, and it does it's job well. To compare its experiences against rarer tanks in the fluff would just be unfair.
From a rules perspective only, the standard Leman Russ is an infantry support weapon rather than a tank killer. Its S8 AP3 isn't powerful enough to reliably kill tanks (only able to immobilise if it penetrates) though it will obliterate heavy infantry unless they have cover.
Though the point people were making by comparing it to Hammerheads or Fire Prisms is that these are the standard tanks (in the Hammerheads case, at least, don't know about the Fire Prism) of their respective armies. So whilst they may not be as common on a galaxy wide scale they are what the Leman Russ will come up against in any confrontation with that respective species. So you're comparing the baseline tank of both armies.
NauticalKendall wrote: The Russ seems like a simple, strong, tank that gets the job done, and done well.
When compared to the Hammerhead, Fire Prism, and whatever it is Necrons use can we really assume that it's even meant to be on par?
Hammerheads for the large part are off on the Eastern fringe, Eldar like to pick and choose their battles as they see fit. I'm sure Fire Prisms aren't that common of an enemy for the Russ crews. Same with Necrons, they pop up every once in awhile and thats that.
The Russ was designed for general combat, and it does it's job well. To compare its experiences against rarer tanks in the fluff would just be unfair.
From a rules perspective only, the standard Leman Russ is an infantry support weapon rather than a tank killer. Its S8 AP3 isn't powerful enough to reliably kill tanks (only able to immobilise if it penetrates) though it will obliterate heavy infantry unless they have cover.
Though the point people were making by comparing it to Hammerheads or Fire Prisms is that these are the standard tanks (in the Hammerheads case, at least, don't know about the Fire Prism) of their respective armies. So whilst they may not be as common on a galaxy wide scale they are what the Leman Russ will come up against in any confrontation with that respective species. So you're comparing the baseline tank of both armies.
The russ has Anti-Tank shells for its battle-cannon to. It mentions them in Imperial Armour Volume 1 (Second Edition). Specifically the " Leman Russ Mk12 G4 Anti-Tank Round".
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
... the other side to the rules is that, while it is vulnerable to a lot of fire, it's still a flier, and thus immune in game to blasts, large blasts, and torrents- you know, most Imperial titan weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: The Imperium actually does innovate. It's just that every innovation has to be carefully tested to ensure that it works properly and the AdMech likes to be very thorough when it comes to their testing. Otherwise, you may end up with disastrous results.
In six thousand years, they couldn't figure out how to solder some anti-aircraft missiles and a radar onto a Rhino.
It's not as simple as that. Imperial technology is not well understood by it's users so any modifications they make could seriously mess with the machine. Soldering a guidance system to a Rhino could've overtaxed it's power systems causing the thing to explode violently or maybe the machine spirit would've been angered making the missiles blow up friendly targets. Every modification to their crap has to be meticulously tested by the AdMech to make sure it'll perform it's function reliably enough.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
... the other side to the rules is that, while it is vulnerable to a lot of fire, it's still a flier, and thus immune in game to blasts, large blasts, and torrents- you know, most Imperial titan weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: The Imperium actually does innovate. It's just that every innovation has to be carefully tested to ensure that it works properly and the AdMech likes to be very thorough when it comes to their testing. Otherwise, you may end up with disastrous results.
In six thousand years, they couldn't figure out how to solder some anti-aircraft missiles and a radar onto a Rhino.
It's not as simple as that. Imperial technology is not well understood by it's users so any modifications they make could seriously mess with the machine. Soldering a guidance system to a Rhino could've overtaxed it's power systems causing the thing to explode violently or maybe the machine spirit would've been angered making the missiles blow up friendly targets. Every modification to their crap has to be meticulously tested by the AdMech to make sure it'll perform it's function reliably enough.
For the record, they never did figure out how to do it. Someone dug up an STC.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Yeah I have pointed out that rule a few times..but it always defaults to fluff vs. rules vs. realisim.
thats why the tigershark is so scary...Titans hate fliers..lol
we discovered this in a mega battle..as my pait of A-X Tigersharks bagged 3 warhounds... the anti flyer rule boned them.
A-yup! Kill any AA the first round they enter, and then go to town. Watch your opponent cry when you hit his Vendettas with D-strength weapons.
Id like to see how that "kill any AA" works on the Praetor Armored Launcher. Its a super-heavy AA missile launcher that fires 2 Str 8, Ap 3 missles with Twin-Linked, Sky Fire and Interceptor rules. In addition where the Tigershark seems to be 660 points, the Praetor Armored Launcher is only 250 points which makes it about the cost of a land raider.
Sigh..yes we can play that game...suicide crisis suits with melta weapons..in single model groups..deep striking blowing up Praetor..or drawing fire...blah blah..the never ending one upmanship from a endless toybox..in a vacuum...that way leads to madness..lol
The point is to emphasize that you may not be able to destroy the enemy AA as it may survive your attacks and or be out of reach, at which point it is free to retaliate and or disrupt your flyer.
By the rules... the heavy railgun outranges the Praetor 108" to 72." Surviving the attacks isn't likely.
Besides, who the crap brings heavy support anti-air? It only gets two stinking shots. It's not like it could handle 'Cron air force.
The mechanicus is also diligent in testing any STCs they recover. One example is the Centurion War-Armor. There are far more powerful warsuits than the Centurion it mentions, however after mechanicus testing, they realized these were simply too dangerous and destructive (which is saying something for the imperium) to be implemented and left them buried.
So in that 6000 years it took to arrive to develop said AA platform, they may have came across numerous, perhaps better variants, but chose the current one because it was the least tainted, dangerous or horrifically destructive at the current time.
Its also implied in the Taros Campaign books that a Manta wouldnt neccessarily win in a confrontation with an imperial titan. As Imperial Armor Vol 3 (2nd edition) states in the Tigersharks entry
Due to its vital role as a transport craft for the Tau's highly mobile Hunter Cadres, Tau commanders were reluctant to risk their Mantas in direct confrontation with the Imperium's Titans. Even if the Mantas were able to successfully destroy their gargantuan prey, they would likely be so damaged after the encounter that they would be unable to continue their role as transports, leaving Tau ground forces unable to redeploy in the face of an enemy's continued advance.
Also the Manta is a liability at times in general when confronting large targets like a titan . Im unsure of if the lore supports this, but on the tabletop when targeting the manta it has this rule attatched to it:
AA Fire - Due to its size, any enemy units that target the manta do not need to make Snap Shots when it is zooming and roll To Hit using their normal BS score even if they do not possess the Skyfire special rule.
... the other side to the rules is that, while it is vulnerable to a lot of fire, it's still a flier, and thus immune in game to blasts, large blasts, and torrents- you know, most Imperial titan weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: The Imperium actually does innovate. It's just that every innovation has to be carefully tested to ensure that it works properly and the AdMech likes to be very thorough when it comes to their testing. Otherwise, you may end up with disastrous results.
In six thousand years, they couldn't figure out how to solder some anti-aircraft missiles and a radar onto a Rhino.
It's not as simple as that. Imperial technology is not well understood by it's users so any modifications they make could seriously mess with the machine. Soldering a guidance system to a Rhino could've overtaxed it's power systems causing the thing to explode violently or maybe the machine spirit would've been angered making the missiles blow up friendly targets. Every modification to their crap has to be meticulously tested by the AdMech to make sure it'll perform it's function reliably enough.
For the record, they never did figure out how to do it. Someone dug up an STC.
Soo'Vah'Cha wrote: Yeah I have pointed out that rule a few times..but it always defaults to fluff vs. rules vs. realisim.
thats why the tigershark is so scary...Titans hate fliers..lol
we discovered this in a mega battle..as my pait of A-X Tigersharks bagged 3 warhounds... the anti flyer rule boned them.
A-yup! Kill any AA the first round they enter, and then go to town. Watch your opponent cry when you hit his Vendettas with D-strength weapons.
Id like to see how that "kill any AA" works on the Praetor Armored Launcher. Its a super-heavy AA missile launcher that fires 2 Str 8, Ap 3 missles with Twin-Linked, Sky Fire and Interceptor rules. In addition where the Tigershark seems to be 660 points, the Praetor Armored Launcher is only 250 points which makes it about the cost of a land raider.
Sigh..yes we can play that game...suicide crisis suits with melta weapons..in single model groups..deep striking blowing up Praetor..or drawing fire...blah blah..the never ending one upmanship from a endless toybox..in a vacuum...that way leads to madness..lol
The point is to emphasize that you may not be able to destroy the enemy AA as it may survive your attacks and or be out of reach, at which point it is free to retaliate and or disrupt your flyer.
By the rules... the heavy railgun outranges the Praetor 108" to 72." Surviving the attacks isn't likely.
Besides, who the crap brings heavy support anti-air? It only gets two stinking shots. It's not like it could handle 'Cron air force.
On its own maybe not. But ideally it will be shooting at Super-Heavy flyers, which cannot jink if I recall. Also for the cost of a super-heavy flyer like the Ork Bommer, The Tiger-Shark or anything else, you can bring more than one launcher, meaning they would out-number the target they would be engaging.
The Imperial Answer wrote: The mechanicus is also diligent in testing any STCs they recover. One example is the Centurion War-Armor. There are far more powerful warsuits than the Centurion it mentions, however after mechanicus testing, they realized these were simply too dangerous and destructive (which is saying something for the imperium) to be implemented and left them buried.
So in that 6000 years it took to arrive to develop said AA platform, they may have came across numerous, perhaps better variants, but chose the current one because it was the least tainted, dangerous or horrifically destructive at the current time.
Which speaks volumes about their lack of innovation.
The Imperial Answer wrote: The mechanicus is also diligent in testing any STCs they recover. One example is the Centurion War-Armor. There are far more powerful warsuits than the Centurion it mentions, however after mechanicus testing, they realized these were simply too dangerous and destructive (which is saying something for the imperium) to be implemented and left them buried.
So in that 6000 years it took to arrive to develop said AA platform, they may have came across numerous, perhaps better variants, but chose the current one because it was the least tainted, dangerous or horrifically destructive at the current time.
Which speaks volumes about their lack of innovation.
I think the priority of the Machine Cult is to re-discover lost technology. Innovation is probably a secondary concern. Also the Mechanicus understands how dangerous technology can be. The wrong kind of innovation can lead to dire consequences, the Men of Iron, and the creations of Hereteks and Warpsmith's being some of the most extreme examples.
On its own maybe not. But ideally it will be shooting at Super-Heavy flyers, which cannot jink if I recall. Also for the cost of a super-heavy flyer like the Ork Bommer, The Tiger-Shark or anything else, you can bring more than one launcher, meaning they would out-number the target they would be engaging.
We could quibble about rules and stuff all day, but in the end, it all comes down to one thing.
In order to face one of these on the tabletop, you have to meet someone who asked themselves, "Do I want to spend my hard-earned money and time assembling and painting a new Titan, a Baneblade... or do I want an anti-aircraft platform?" and answers with the third, over the first two. Titans and giant tanks look cool.
The Imperial Answer wrote: The mechanicus is also diligent in testing any STCs they recover. One example is the Centurion War-Armor. There are far more powerful warsuits than the Centurion it mentions, however after mechanicus testing, they realized these were simply too dangerous and destructive (which is saying something for the imperium) to be implemented and left them buried.
So in that 6000 years it took to arrive to develop said AA platform, they may have came across numerous, perhaps better variants, but chose the current one because it was the least tainted, dangerous or horrifically destructive at the current time.
Which speaks volumes about their lack of innovation.
I think the priority of the Machine Cult is to re-discover lost technology. Innovation is probably a secondary concern. Also the Mechanicus understands how dangerous technology can be. The wrong kind of innovation can lead to dire consequences, the Men of Iron, and the creations of Hereteks and Warpsmith's being some of the most extreme examples.
It's just taking already-existing parts and assembling them in a new way.
On its own maybe not. But ideally it will be shooting at Super-Heavy flyers, which cannot jink if I recall. Also for the cost of a super-heavy flyer like the Ork Bommer, The Tiger-Shark or anything else, you can bring more than one launcher, meaning they would out-number the target they would be engaging.
We could quibble about rules and stuff all day, but in the end, it all comes down to one thing.
In order to face one of these on the tabletop, you have to meet someone who asked themselves, "Do I want to spend my hard-earned money and time assembling and painting a new Titan, a Baneblade... or do I want an anti-aircraft platform?" and answers with the third, over the first two. Titans and giant tanks look cool.
You can scratch build one at a cost cheaper than buying it out-right. All they are is a large missile launcher on a large tank chassis. Plenty of cheap options for conversions there. Would actually be neat to see all the different ways to represent a Praetor.
The Imperial Answer wrote: The mechanicus is also diligent in testing any STCs they recover. One example is the Centurion War-Armor. There are far more powerful warsuits than the Centurion it mentions, however after mechanicus testing, they realized these were simply too dangerous and destructive (which is saying something for the imperium) to be implemented and left them buried.
So in that 6000 years it took to arrive to develop said AA platform, they may have came across numerous, perhaps better variants, but chose the current one because it was the least tainted, dangerous or horrifically destructive at the current time.
Which speaks volumes about their lack of innovation.
I think the priority of the Machine Cult is to re-discover lost technology. Innovation is probably a secondary concern. Also the Mechanicus understands how dangerous technology can be. The wrong kind of innovation can lead to dire consequences, the Men of Iron, and the creations of Hereteks and Warpsmith's being some of the most extreme examples.
It's just taking already-existing parts and assembling them in a new way.
Which can still lead to disaster if it is assembled incorrectly or in a way that displeases the Machine god or the technologies sentience or machine-spirit.
This Thread is still stuck in silly " but my guys can beat your guys" nonsense?
Fact is:
1) 40k happens in a Galaxy, with Humans and Orks everywhere, some Eldar cruising around, an unknown number of worlds which may turn out to be tomb worlds of the Necrons, Tyranids showing up for dinner here and there, plus chaos and its minions not caring for limits where to go.
Additionally the Humans have to deal with their own inner problems, like secessionists, so basically the Opponent a Leman Russ would drive into is most likely Humans or Orks. Blue skinned upstarts from the east are not relevant at all.
2) its a GW design. It is not realistic, it got a rather comic or toy style and the fluff and rules may change on a whim.
3) Mankinds vehicles tend to be built from a template ( chassis ) plus more turrets and more guns...
4) GW offered Tank crew as Citadel Miniatures.
5) the Leman Russ is a "work horse". Its your "everyday ride", not the car you may wish to own , maybe.
The Leman Russ offers seval different armaments. Isn't hard to keep going and some repairs are done by its crew. Further assistance is done by the Ad Mech ( Engineseers ). Its possible to survive a hit ( crew may escape ) and the common reason a Tank isn't on active duty is not : has xploded and is all over the place now... Recovery of armor is possible and FW showed vehicles for exactly that. Front armor is in-game at the max value, side armor isn't bad either.
The typical USR of the IG applies too: brings a lot of friends to the field of battle.
So we have a lot of variants to deal with different targets, usually the LR isn't alone, Humans and Orks ( looted ) use it, the Tank is resilient enough against many foes, the crew may escape death, its never a "black boxed" system and finally GW isn't good at balancing.
The chance of survival of Joe average guardsman based on rules is: irrelevant, cause you get vehicles with crew included. I doubt many editions of 40k didn't take the vehicle and the crew out of play. ( IIRC there was one where the crew could escape death ). But basically if you let the LR crew manage to surivive, you have to offer the same to every vehicle crew in the game that isn't hardwired into the chassis.
The chance of survival of Joe average guardsman based on the Background is: not bad, the armor of the Tank should do its job against the majority of opponents he may have to fight, lots of guns to deal out damage before you receive it, good target saturation because IG, he could repair it to move on, the departemento munitorum isn't known to let him run out of fuel or ammo or rations, and there are reported cases of giving up a disabled Tank without beeing shot by a comissar.
The chance of survival of joe average guardsmen based on GW's ( and BL , FW ) usual stories: depends if he is the protagonist or the "red shirt". In a Leman Russ or not is irrelevant in this case.
10 millenia of service. And the Leman Russ is going to add another 10.
Plus, it will drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword.
1hadhq wrote: This Thread is still stuck in silly " but my guys can beat your guys" nonsense?
Fact is:
1) 40k happens in a Galaxy, with Humans and Orks everywhere, some Eldar cruising around, an unknown number of worlds which may turn out to be tomb worlds of the Necrons, Tyranids showing up for dinner here and there, plus chaos and its minions not caring for limits where to go.
Additionally the Humans have to deal with their own inner problems, like secessionists, so basically the Opponent a Leman Russ would drive into is most likely Humans or Orks. Blue skinned upstarts from the east are not relevant at all.
2) its a GW design. It is not realistic, it got a rather comic or toy style and the fluff and rules may change on a whim.
3) Mankinds vehicles tend to be built from a template ( chassis ) plus more turrets and more guns...
4) GW offered Tank crew as Citadel Miniatures.
5) the Leman Russ is a "work horse". Its your "everyday ride", not the car you may wish to own , maybe.
The Leman Russ offers seval different armaments. Isn't hard to keep going and some repairs are done by its crew. Further assistance is done by the Ad Mech ( Engineseers ). Its possible to survive a hit ( crew may escape ) and the common reason a Tank isn't on active duty is not : has xploded and is all over the place now... Recovery of armor is possible and FW showed vehicles for exactly that. Front armor is in-game at the max value, side armor isn't bad either.
The typical USR of the IG applies too: brings a lot of friends to the field of battle.
So we have a lot of variants to deal with different targets, usually the LR isn't alone, Humans and Orks ( looted ) use it, the Tank is resilient enough against many foes, the crew may escape death, its never a "black boxed" system and finally GW isn't good at balancing.
The chance of survival of Joe average guardsman based on rules is: irrelevant, cause you get vehicles with crew included. I doubt many editions of 40k didn't take the vehicle and the crew out of play. ( IIRC there was one where the crew could escape death ). But basically if you let the LR crew manage to surivive, you have to offer the same to every vehicle crew in the game that isn't hardwired into the chassis.
The chance of survival of Joe average guardsman based on the Background is: not bad, the armor of the Tank should do its job against the majority of opponents he may have to fight, lots of guns to deal out damage before you receive it, good target saturation because IG, he could repair it to move on, the departemento munitorum isn't known to let him run out of fuel or ammo or rations, and there are reported cases of giving up a disabled Tank without beeing shot by a comissar.
The chance of survival of joe average guardsmen based on GW's ( and BL , FW ) usual stories: depends if he is the protagonist or the "red shirt". In a Leman Russ or not is irrelevant in this case.
10 millenia of service. And the Leman Russ is going to add another 10.
Plus, it will drive me closer so I can hit them with my sword.
The Imperial Answer wrote: It seems like the Hammerhead was actually built to engage enemy armor threats from afar with as little risk to the tank itself as possible.
It seems like the Russ was made to be a mobile bunker as much as a tank to support grinding offensives.
Lemans are assault vehicles. They are moving bunkers to provide fire support to taker downa cariety of targets, and are built to take heavy punishment. Think WWII assault shermans.
Hammerheads aren't. They are effectively attack helicopters. Different use. Different purpose. You should compare a hammerhead to a vulture gunship, not a Leman Russ.
You should compare Lemans to other assault vehicles-landraiders, other land tanks, super heavies, and even Necron "armor" that serve a similar purpose of heavy assault and supporting infantry. In this capacity they shine quite well, given their cost of manufacture. They are exceedingly rugged, easily manufactured and supported logistically, and can be given to crews with limited skill sets.
UP ABOUT BLOODY WWIII YOU DUMB S 
